User talk:MoradoKhan
Welcome[edit]
|
December 2016[edit]
Hello, I'm Jim1138. I noticed that in this edit to Evangelical Baptist Church of Korea, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Jim1138 (talk) 10:07, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
- See the wp:page history and "undo". Please be sure to justify your rational in the wp:edit summary Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 10:36, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Exemplo347 (talk) 10:42, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Exemplo347 (talk) 10:43, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Please discuss your edits[edit]
Instead of once again removing sourced content from the article Evangelical Baptist Church of Korea, you need to go to Talk:Evangelical Baptist Church of Korea and propose your edits there. Removing reliable secondary sources in order to present only the sources based on the church itself directly contravenes Wikipedia's policies on verifiability and sources (in particular, see this information). In a nutshell, Wikipedia is not really interested in what an entity says about itself, but in what other realiable published sources have said about the entity. --bonadea contributions talk 11:08, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Managing a conflict of interest[edit]
Hello, MoradoKhan. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places, or things you have written about in the article Evangelical Baptist Church of Korea, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:
- avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
- instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the {{request edit}} template);
- when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
- avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
- exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.
In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).
Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you. bonadea contributions talk 11:09, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Removed content from the AUL times quotes a prosecutor citing an anonymous source with no additional verification from an independent, second source. If the journalist quotes the prosecutor's statement (which could be a fact or hearsay or a rumor) without additional supporting evidence, is that good journalism? Is that reliable just because the journalist was good at dictating the prosecutor's statement and let it stand without further scrutiny? Is it good wikipedia practice to blindly let such statements stand and even prohibit edit to remove them?MoradoKhan (talk) 11:41, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
regarding the COI, that is precisely why reliable quotations are used and must be cited. Forum here is intelligent enough when newspaper particles are quesitoned for validity. (After all, if all published newspaper articles were reputable, why would anyone look up wikipedia?)MoradoKhan (talk) 11:43, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Fully note that wikipedia is uninterested in what the entity has to say about itself, viewed with a bias and self-promotion. Edits in the first para was an intro about the definition of the said church. Therefore, such section warrants a self-definition. Then external views and comments can follow, whether they are seen as cult or aliens etc. However the first para before the edit had no room for self-definition. For true objectivity, intro para needs to be justifiably juxtaposed between the self definition and external assessment. That's fairness and objectivity. No?MoradoKhan (talk) 11:46, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
For the reasons cited above, I kindly request restoration of my original edits in the first para. As for the second para, I'll get to it later. Thanks.MoradoKhan (talk) 11:47, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Also, given the content of the wikipedia page, it should retitled as the scandals of the evangelical baptist church, rather than the evangelical baptist church as if it does full justice to the church, what it does and believes. For example, individual Wiki biographies are quote from the autobiography. Therefore, why should it be any different on the church Wiki page? MoradoKhan (talk) 11:53, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Any logical description of a person or an entity must follow a logical sequence in a chronological order or at least cause and effect. For instance, personal biographies start from the birth, childhood and proceeds to education, beliefs, career, marriage and accomplishments etc. Likewise, it makes a logical sense to include the history of the church as the second para. Therefore, I request the restoration of my edits for the church chronology in the second para. MoradoKhan (talk) 11:56, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Also, may I suggest that Wikipedia reviewers coordinate and do their homework before summarily undoing the edits? If you read the beginning of the post and follow the exchange with Jim who first acted on my edits, you will realize that I had ample discussion with him and I agreed to provide enough edit notes to justify my actions. It was resolved and agreed with him until other reviewers like Exemplo and Bonadea jumped into action without bothering to read a few lines first in the exchange. If you allow me time, we can be much more constructive please. MoradoKhan (talk) 12:04, 19 December 2016 (UTC)