User talk:Broventiano

Hi everyone, I started writing in December 2021. Let's work together to make Wikipedia a valuable place.

Regarding a recent edit you made.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_Mission_Society_Church_of_God&oldid=1075207606

To put it separated from can imply they came from that group, but they didn’t. They both formed after the meeting they had. I believe the original church dissolved once that meeting was concluded. Lordkhain (talk) 00:31, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your note. Yes, you are absolutely right about my recent edit on March 4 regarding the WMSCOG not being “separated_from = New Covenant Passover Church of God (NCPCOG)”. I have now corrected that. Also thank you for mentioning the question about the possible dissolving of the original church. This issue might be worth a footnote in the article. Broventiano (talk) 16:53, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Haven’t mentioned anything in awhile, but have you noticed people tend to vandalize the same material? Or fail to read the article that already references the material they changed? Lordkhain (talk) 23:02, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

World Mission Society Church of God

You mentioned when you edited the article on the World Mission Society Church of God that the article lacked neutrality about that church and that's why you removed the article from the Cults category. But when you mentioned why you did it, it got me worried because your reason for doing it was anything but neutral: even with every article mentioning that the World Mission Society Church of God is a cult (even on the websites of the country where that church started, South Korea). That's why I would like to ask you: what led you to make this edition and remove the article from the Cults category? I hope you have a good rational explanation for this, because based on the explanation you gave for this issue occurring, you spoke in a way that implied you are a member of that church. And I study and work with this issue of cults where I live for almost 19 years and based on years of studying this, your explanation was far from neutral. I hope you don't have any connection to this church, because if you do, that's pretty worrying. That's why I want you to explain to me why you did this, because your explanation for this edition you did about this church is very worrying... 2804:14C:5B41:8B9E:F155:B603:60E5:7C72 (talk) 11:15, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with placing it in the “Cults” category is that the word cult has a very negative connotation to it (in modern usage it usually means: “ religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious”). In the originally use of the word it is synonymous with the word “sect” (a religious group).

There is a section “ Criticism and controversy ” that mentions that some individuals and groups claim the group is cult-like.

Being a part of a religious group shouldn’t change the neutrality approach of presenting information in an Wikipedia article. The articles you may have read online about a group, may be very biased as well.

(source for definitions: Merriam-Webster)

I apologize for replying in your behalf Broventiano, and I apologize the same to you anonymous user. I was merely checking if they had replied to my message and I saw yours and felt I could explain. As many people have tried to change it to the “Cults” category. I hope this is helpful to you.

If my grammar is incorrect, I apologize as I’m on mobile. Lordkhain (talk) 20:44, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back!

Glad to see that you have returned! Hope you are well! Lordkhain (talk) 22:25, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. Yes I'm well. Good wishes to you, too. Broventiano (talk) 17:28, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request

A user named Hicell (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Hicell) Doesn't have a user page to link. But they've been making changes to Ahn Sahng-hong since February 2024. Their edits have been largely non disruptive in my opinion but I've noticed after going back over them, that they're mostly unneeded and biased. This is my opinion of course.

I was wondering if you could look them over and either change them to correct version, or tell me your opinion on it.

Thanks in advance:) Lordkhain (talk) 08:23, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You must be on another break sorry :).

I disagree with putting cult in the top header when there's a criticism section. I don't want to argue with this Grayfell guy. Lordkhain (talk) 05:14, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"On another break"... Yes, you could say that, even though I'm busy from morning to night ;-) Thank's for asking. Hope you are well too. I basically did not read the massive changes on those three pages for a long time, and even right now I cannot do that in detail. And another point is that I was kind of tired of constantly being the gatekeeper for these pages. Furthermore, something good might be possibly developing, too, if I don't constantly interrupt and intervene, e.g. other people feeling responsible for making sure these three pages will meet Wikipedia standards at some point. But I agree, the changes of the last months have to be worked over at some point. I hope, I will find the time. Again, thank's for asking. Broventiano (talk) 15:38, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]