User talk:Olympic1012

Welcome!

Hello, Olympic1012, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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!

July 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Every Nation may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

gay-president_n_2624080.html|accessdate=12 May 2013|newspaper=Huffington Post|date=5 February 2013}}</ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:06, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Every Nation may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

gay-president_n_2624080.html|accessdate=12 May 2013|newspaper=Huffington Post|date=5 February 2013}}</ref>
wagner#reader_0800794354 </ref> C. Peter Wagner does advocate the use of war in his Dominion book (See Chapter 6 of his Dominion publication A New Reality: This means War! <ref> http://www.amazon.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:00, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. 76.248.144.216 (talk) 18:06, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm 76.248.144.216. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. 76.248.144.216 (talk) 18:06, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be more to the point, it doesn't look good when an account's sole purpose is to make non-neutral contributions, with conclusions based on original research. I've already started threads re: this at the article's talk page, as well as the BLP Noticeboard. I think it would be a good idea if you discontinued in this vein, in deference to Wikipedia's policies re: proper sourcing and neutrality. Thank you, 76.248.144.216 (talk) 18:50, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea who you are, but you did get my attention by simply deleting my contributions. By definition a criticism section is going to have a point of view. From my perspective you simply made a conclusion and deleted my work without offering any reasoning whatsoever. It is no secret Disney has long supported the gay agenda. It is also no secret many Christian groups oppose homosexuality. Therefore, a Christian denomination which supports business with substantial pro gay policies is a proper subject to raise under a criticism. Really, announcing your position and then leaving me to guess at your true position. I think it would be a good idea if you discontinued in this vein, based upon the fact your critique is simply form without any content. Thank you.

Thanks for your response, which clarifies that your interest in editing is to represent a point of view, and that you are reaching conclusions, whether true or not, based on your own research--this is not acceptable in an encyclopedia, and is further complicated with respect to policy at WP:BLP. In addition to recommending that you read the general guidelines which are linked to at the top of this page, a familiarity with those I've noted today is especially relevant. Please understand that this regards Wikipedia policy--I have no interest in the subject per se, and have removed some unsourced promotional content from the article as well--and not my own beliefs, which are immaterial. Thank you, 76.248.144.216 (talk) 19:33, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, I've been clear in my edit summaries and talk page discussion re: my edits; there's no way that a passage like this can stay [1], and I suspect once other objective editors read the article more revisions will follow. 76.248.144.216 (talk) 19:36, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Every Nation may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

president_n_2624080.html%7Caccessdate=12 May 2013|newspaper=Huffington Post|date=5 February 2013}</ref> There continues to be opposition to Disney’s Gay agenda such as the One Million Mom Campaign.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:01, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

Hello. Please participate in the current discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 76.248.144.216 (talk) 20:02, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Every Nation article

Olympic1012, your edits to that article have been and will continue to be reverted by multiple editors because they are not following the policies of Wikipedia. I'm going to point to you the pages on those policies, please read through them. You MUST follow them when making edits if you want your changes to remain in the article.

You must have reliable sources that can be verified. Please CAREFULLY read the reliable source article and remember that forums, blogs and self-published websites are just about always NOT reliable sources.
You cannot use original research, meaning every fact/opinion/statement needs to have a source for it
Related, you cannot use synthesis, meaning saying because A and B, C happened when you don't have a source that connects A and B to cause C. You cannot infer this either. Much of the change you want to make to the Every Nation falls foul of this
You need to avoid trying to make the article a WP:COATRACK, meaning using tenuous connections to add unrelated critical information to the article.

Basically, you really need to find a good, reliable secondary sources that make the claims and conclusions that you're trying to add to the article. These sources need to be specifically related to Every Nation, not broad general complaints. Thank you. Ravensfire (talk) 13:53, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are many assertions which are not supported by identifiable references. I have deleted some of those unidentifiable or unidentifiable sources. Olympic1012 (talk) 15:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed your recent edit to Every Nation does not have an edit summary. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history. Thanks! Gamaliel (talk) 19:04, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're invited to the Teahouse.

Hello! Olympic1012, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! Jamesmcmahon0 (talk) 17:46, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]