User talk:Cwisehart

--The Master Guns (talk) 15:45, 17 February 2015 (UTC) The Master Guns apologizes for his ineptness on these wikis but he/I do appreciate them and he is learning. Thank you all for your patience.[reply]

Re: Prosporus

Okay =) Anyway, all jokings aside, I turned the article into a redirect because it's a plausible misspelling of "prosperous" and as such should redirect to "prosperity".

Basically, the sad state of the site is that we're a serious encyclopedia. neologisms usually aren't good enough to be included here, and silly jokes tend to get deleted. Basically we're not a dictionary either - or a joke book. (If you want to let out steam, there's always Uncyclopedia.) If you want to make a new article like that, people who get the joke would delete it outright people who don't would subject it to an extremely painful deletion process (You'd have to start answering tricky questions like "who uses this term in real world? Is there a source for this alleged political party of Spores?"). I just tried to make it a little bit less painful by turning it into a redirect because, well, it's a plausible misspelling.

Well, all I can say is that Wikipedia can be a funny place - regrettably we can't really use a whole lot of humour in articles themselves. Please keep that in mind. And finally, happy editing, remember to check our fine newbie material (if you haven't already) and remember to keep eyes open and just follow along everyone else's good examples. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 23:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Christopher Boyd Wisehart

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. WWGB (talk) 11:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

August 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page Talk:Christopher Boyd Wisehart has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Katieh5584 (talk) 12:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A summary of site policies and guidelines you may find useful

Please sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~, found next to the 1 key), and please do not alter other's comments.
"Truth" is not the criteria for inclusion, verifiability is.
We do not publish original thought nor original research. We merely summarize reliable sources without elaboration or interpretation.
Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. This usually means that secular academia is given prominence over any individual sect's doctrines, though those doctrines may be discussed in an appropriate section that clearly labels those beliefs for what they are.

Reformulated:

"Truth" is not the only criteria for inclusion, verifiability is also required.
Always cite a source for any new information. When adding this information to articles, use <ref>reference tags like this</ref>, containing the name of the source, the author, page number, publisher or web address (if applicable).
We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology.
A subject is considered notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. Real scholarship actually does not say what understanding of the world is "true," but only with what there is evidence for. In the case of science, this evidence must ultimately start with physical evidence. In the case of religion, this means only reporting what has been written and not taking any stance on doctrine.
Material must be proportionate to what is found in the source cited. If a source makes a small claim and presents two larger counter claims, the material it supports should present one claim and two counter claims instead of presenting the one claim as extremely large while excluding or downplaying the counter claims.
We do not give equal validity to topics which reject and are rejected by mainstream academia. For example, our article on Earth does not pretend it is flat, hollow, and/or the center of the universe.

Also, not a policy or guideline, but something important to understand the above policies and guidelines: Wikipedia operates off of objective information, which is information that multiple persons can examine and agree upon. It does not include subjective information, which only an individual can know from an "inner" or personal experience. Most religious beliefs fall under subjective information. Wikipedia may document objective statements about notable subjective claims (i.e. "Christians believe Jesus is divine"), but it does not pretend that subjective statements are objective, and will expose false statements masquerading as subjective beliefs (cf. Indigo children).

You may also want to read User:Ian.thomson/ChristianityAndNPOV. We at Wikipedia are highbrow (snobby), heavily biased for the academia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:40, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]