User talk:Bishop Morehouse

Welcome!

Hello, Bishop Morehouse, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits has not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and has been or will be removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or in other media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles. Additionally, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or . Again, welcome.  Doug Weller talk 15:18, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

October 2016

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Moral Majority has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

• ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• For help, take a look at the introduction.
• The following is the log entry regarding this message: Moral Majority was changed by Bishop Morehouse (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.86983 on 2016-10-15T21:02:54+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 21:02, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Richard Dawkins, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. - DVdm (talk) 09:38, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of sources

This edit at Anita Bryant changed "affected her popularity and career" to "improved her popularity and career". How do you justify this when the source says "Her career crashed after her 1977 campaign to repeal a gay rights ordinance in Miami. She felt the ordinance was unconstitutional, that it forced private schools to hire gay teachers. But the controversy scared away sponsors and promoters. Gay activists launched a boycott of products she sold. Florida growers ended her 12-year run as spokeswoman for the citrus industry. Promoters canceled 80 bookings in one year." This isn't the only edit of yours that is problematic. I was planning to post to you earlier but real life got in the way. If virtually all your edits are being reverted, there's a problem, and it's not everyone else. Doug Weller talk 15:21, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Other problematic edits

At Save Our Children you removed Category:Discrimination against LGBT people in the United States which is clearly justified. You attacked an editor "and was this mislinking also based on cited sources? how very careless of you" for the link biblical morality which was simply an unpiping, it still linked to the same article.

Worse, at Henry M. Morris you deleted and changed a quotation[1] (we allow opinion, and opinions always have a pov) and added "but is nevertheless accepted by a number of true believers." making it appear that that statement was in the source. Not only that, but "true believers" suggests that a particular religious viewpoint is actually true, and that's a big violation of WP:NPOV.

You tried to use the talk page Talk:Russian military intervention in Syria to preach, adding the same text 3 times. Talk pages aren't web forums. #

You added your own opinions to several articles, eg calling Carter " Carter turned out to be one of the poorest Presidents we ever had." at Moral Majority, evidently in an attempt to discredit him. And of course "we"? Wikipedia is international. You added unsourced material which looks like personal opinion at James Moorhouse.

At Answers in Genesis you removed both "fundamentalist" and "apologetics ministry" from the lead, calling them biased descriptions. AIG says it is an apologetics ministry.[2] It's pretty clear that you aren't bothering to see if your edits are accurate or not.

At Richard Dawkins you added "During his debates, while demonstrating an excellent command of the contemporary Darwinian biology, Dawkins has shown himself to be rather ignorant in matters of philosophy, divinity and theology." saying that you found it on " Conservapedia- i guess it's neutral and objective for us here as well". Conservapedia doesn't claim to be neutral, it says it is "Conservative and Christian". And of course the text is unsourced.

All of this raises two questions. Are you competent - see WP:CIR and are you here to improve Wikipedia WP:NOTHERE, or only to push your own views? If you continue this pattern you will be blocked.Doug Weller talk 15:54, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Bishop Morehouse, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Bishop Morehouse! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like I JethroBT (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:04, 16 October 2016 (UTC)