User talk:MentorRC

Welcome!

Hello, MentorRC, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Yworo (talk) 15:12, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing

Hi. It's not clear that Ancient Order of the Rosicrucians is notable according to our standards for notability of organizations. What's really needed is some independent third-party coverage in reliable sources. Has the organization gotten any press? If not, I'm afraid the article will eventually be deleted. You really need to start footnoting the assertions in the article to sources as you add material. Otherwise, the material will likely be removed, even if notability is established. Also, if you are involved with the organization, you may want to read our policies on conflict of interest. Yworo (talk) 15:12, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Ancient Order of the Rosicrucians for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article Ancient Order of the Rosicrucians, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ancient Order of the Rosicrucians until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Yworo (talk) 15:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Skating on thin ice

You need to read WP:POINT. Editing disruptively to prove a point can get you blocked from editing. Yworo (talk) 20:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources

Wikipedia is not a reliable source because anybody can edit it. See Wikipedia:RS#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. Just because there is a list of references doesn't mean the content of the article actually accurately reflects what those references say. Other things that anybody can edit, like Wikia, are also not reliable sources. In fact, any sites where the content is user contributed are not considered to be reliable, for example, blogs and forums. Yworo (talk) 15:58, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ok, thank you MentorRC (talk) 16:03, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Yworo (talk) 16:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Government registration

Please note that while the government registration is a reliable source for both the existence of the organization and the name of the leader of the organization, it does not establish notability. Every business and non-profit organization must be registered with a government. Notability means that mainstream sources, books, magazines, or newspapers, etc. have written in-depth material about the organization. Online sites are also okay as long as they are major: mention at a fringe UFO & other phenomena site doesn't establish notability either. So you've still got to find better sources. Yworo (talk) 17:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, most small organizations don't get into books for 20-some years, if they survive. And they usually only get into other reliable sources if something bad happens, like they all drink the kool-aid or engage in terrorism or something like that. There is no shame in not yet meeting Wikipedia notability requirements for a new small organization. Yworo (talk) 17:27, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

December 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Ancient Order of the Rosicrucians has been reverted.
Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. I removed the following link(s): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rolsUiPayzg. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. a sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy and therefore probably should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 22:39, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't link to youtube videos from the external links section. That's considered promotional. An organization with a website typically has a single external link to their official site. It's presumed that any material such as articles and videos will be linked from that site and thus do not need a link from Wikipedia. Yworo (talk) 23:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

phefff, ok, thank you again MentorRC (talk) 23:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The articles are spread on different pages MentorRC (talk) 06:41, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why English Wikipedia?

I find myself wondering why, if most of the sources are in German (and probably only easily available for verification in Germany), you are writing this article on English Wikipedia? I suspect you'd have a much better chance of getting the article properly supported on German Wikipedia. I also suspect that despite being called "International", most of the Order membership is in Germany and the Order is mostly of interest to Germans. One route, should the article be deleted, would be to write a properly cited article on German Wikipedia, then put in a request for it to be translated. That way you'd get someone who can read German to do the translation and they would have an easier time verifying German sources. Just a thought... Yworo (talk) 23:47, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not author of this article, i didn't write it, it has been here for 5 years. I will probably transfer it to the German Wiki with this kind of Bibliography it should be notable there, so that my (and your) work these days was not in vain, thank you. MentorRC (talk) 06:39, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

You have been listed on this noticeboard for your edits to Ancient Order of the Rosicrucians. Edward321 (talk) 01:30, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning my COI, I am not author of this article, I am simply improving by investigating facts and sources for this Organization, no personal discussion needed, the investigated Bibliography Material is proof enough for notability MentorRC (talk) 06:32, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors, which you did not on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ancient Order of the Rosicrucians. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. this warning is in regard to ALL of your edits at this discussion, not just the latest one. WuhWuzDat 19:12, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rosy13 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. WuhWuzDat 19:17, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So it's been confirmed that you control this account, Mentor rc (talk · contribs) and Rosy13 (talk · contribs). You used Mentor rc in a way on the Articles for Deletion page that's unacceptable, so I've blocked your account for three days for sock puppeting. If you continue to use alternate accounts to game the votes on that page, you may find yourself indefinitely blocked from editing. Thanks. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've reset your block for three days for block evasion. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]