User talk:WikiMrBadger

This is WikiMrBadger's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Revelatory Theory of Atonement (June 9)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by 0xDeadbeef was:

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Revelatory Theory of Atonement and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Revelatory Theory of Atonement, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

0xDeadbeef 03:56, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Thank you for the rapid response. Given the cautions I had expected it would take longer. Had I known I would have blocked time to react more quickly. But I (we - this is a group effort) have caught my breath and am going to start fixing the observations.

Some observations / questions:

- First, this is our first attempt to write an article. So we ask indulgence in advance if we misunderstand the process / culture.

- Second, we immediately understood the observation that we had not used a neutral tone. What we could use some further guidance on is just how deep the tone revision needs to go. Is it likely to be sufficient to rephrase statements with "it is claimed" or "the theory proposes" etc. Or do we need to go deeper into addressing the alternate viewpoints?

- Finally, is the tone the major objection or is this just the most obvious of possible red flags?

Again, thanks for the rapid response and thanks in advance for any suggestions or points you can supply. WikiMrBadger (talk) 22:06, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Are you an individual representing a group of people or is the group of people using this account for editing?

Response:

It is fine
If the article uses only biblical sources, then it could fail WP:GNG, our notability criteria for articles.
The latter. The draft reads like an essay to me. I hope you see the meaning of "encyclopaedic" as writing style that has a neutral tone and objectively explains the subject. 0xDeadbeef 10:25, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, WikiMrBadger! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! 0xDeadbeef 03:56, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly explain your statement

"But I (we - this is a group effort) have caught my breath and am going to start fixing the observations." The above raises questions as to whether your draft represents the work of one person or of more than one person. Also, what does "fixing the observations" refer to? Observations are something Wikipedia does not publish. We call it original research. Please answer promptly.--Quisqualis (talk) 03:34, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity?

If your draft concerns Christianity, please make that clear. And, as it stands, your article is an essay for a theological journal. Wikipedia is a general-interest encyclopedia, which is why we wikilink our unfamiliar terms.--Quisqualis (talk) 03:34, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A very old but recently revived religious viewpoint

Quality Wikipedia articles don't just tell the world about your point of view, they give context. For instance:

Who first came up with this viewpoint?
When did the "theory" arise?
How did it evolve?
How does it differ from standard doctrine?
What was published on the subject at that time?
When did the recent revival begin?
What triggered the recent revival?
Who revived it and what publications demonstrate this?
What school of religious thought is associated with this "theory"?
What, if any, Christian denominations care about this "theory"?
Summarize what neutral theological scholars have said about this "theory".

These days, Wikipedia is pretty infertile ground upon which to sow advocacy, in case you haven't noticed. If you want to broadcast your Good Word, there are other venues available, though they might cost money.--Quisqualis (talk) 03:53, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is my belief that our extensive references are properly formatted.

Mr. Badger, it's past time you explained to your fellow Wikipedia editors what group you are fronting for. Clearly, you are not acting on your own, and may only be an acolyte or intern of some larger group, which you must clearly declare if you intend to edit any further on Wikipedia.

Wikipedia has a term for what you are doing here, and it's Single-purpose account. Your purpose appears to be against the purposes of Wikipedia, attempting to spread your theological ideas via an objective, neutral, rigorous encyclopedia. As an example, the RTA is not something one can Google for more information, indicating that the term is likely not being written about. Googling the synonyms you have given yields more religious gobbledygook similar to what you have written. I recommend that you approach Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard and ask them whether your draft contains anything of interest to their project.--Quisqualis (talk) 06:42, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi WikiMrBadger! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Understanding NPOV (Neutral Point of View), has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread.

See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:02, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Cosmic Conflict View of Atonement (November 25)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Rusalkii were:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
reliable
secondary
independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.

The comment the reviewer left was:

"Cosmic Conflict View of Atonement" gives me 0 google hits - is there another, more common name? Otherwise, this looks like original synthesis, which generally doesn't belong on wikipedia. Also, the point of view here is coming from within a Christian framework. Articles about religious claims should be written neutrally, talking about what reliable sources claim without endorsing or disputing it in Wikipedia's voice.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Cosmic Conflict View of Atonement and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Rusalkii (talk) 23:25, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does not the very first footnote help address the problem of it being referenced in other places?

Specifically:

This theory of atonement has also been called the Larger View and the Trust-Healing Model. Some notable adherents of the cosmic conflict view who have called it by these names are Graham Maxwell, Daniel Duda and Jon Paulien (Pineknoll Publications, Conversations About God, and Pineknoll Biographies) and Dr. Tim Jennings (Come and Reason Ministries), respectively, and by critic Norman Gulley (1992) A Look at the Larger View of Calvary: An Evaluation of the Debate in the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Many proponents of this view merely refer to it by its “cosmic conflict” or “great controversy” perspective (see Jonathan Gallagher, Dr. Ken Hart, Ty Gibson, and Richard Duane Smith). Although a significant subgroup of Seventh-day Adventists holds this view of atonement, it is not a formally recognized doctrine of the church. The Seventh-day Adventist church does, however, teach a great controversy that was espoused by its prophetess Ellen G. White in her book The Great Controversy Between Christ and Satan, on which the cosmic conflict view of atonement is based. This specific understanding of the atonement has not yet been settled as a matter of Seventh-day Adventist doctrine. WikiMrBadger (talk) 23:56, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Cosmic Conflict View of Atonement

Hello, WikiMrBadger. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Cosmic Conflict View of Atonement, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 19:53, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Cosmic Conflict View of Atonement

Hello, WikiMrBadger. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Cosmic Conflict View of Atonement".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]