User talk:Sarahjones49

June 2020

Hello, I'm JimRenge. I noticed that you made a comment on the page User talk:Teishin that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. It is up to User:Teishin to remove or not to remove your comment on his talk page. Please see WP:Talk for more info. JimRenge (talk) 12:20, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JimRenge thanks for noting that comment. For the time being I'm leaving it up, as unfortunately it may need to be pointed to. Thank you also for addressing the issues about verifiabilty below.Teishin (talk) 12:21, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Secular Buddhism. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Please see also WP:V, WP:BURDEN, WP:BRD and WP:NOT. Self-published websites sources are largely not acceptable as sources in wikipedia. JimRenge (talk) 17:01, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The info removed is not promotional and related to an org I found thru fi doing their podcast and website. If they are a legal religious community related to secularBuddhism, why cant I list them using info found online using multiple sources website podcast facebook twitter etc? Sarahjones49 (talk) 03:22, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The info you added is not verifiable with independent, secondary, reliable sources. Per WP:Verifiability, "In the English Wikipedia, verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of editors." Self-published websites sources are largely not acceptable as sources in wikipedia.

If you have any questions about editing wikipedia, please consider to ask the uninvolved expert editors at the WP:TEAHOUSE. JimRenge (talk) 08:05, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused. As to this authoritarian approach to public information. SLB is a non profit religious organization verifiable with the state of California secretary of state. That is a verifiable source citation right? The link to their non profit CA registration? I'm not sure why it is beneficial to you to be engaging in censorship or how that benefits wikipedia or the public? Sarahjones49 (talk) 21:40, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If I add back with sec of state ca non profit registration link that makes the entry verifiable and acceptable? Sarahjones49 (talk) 21:42, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to keep adding back with citations and references that meet t the criterion. Peace, Sarah Sarahjones49 (talk) 21:43, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Talk:Secular Buddhism—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 05:22, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notification: Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for Vandalism. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding {{unblock|your reason here}} below this notice. Materialscientist (talk) 05:22, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]