Hello, MuzickMaker, 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 click here to ask for help here on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome!
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:33, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi MuzickMaker! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Come join other new editors at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a space where new editors can get help from other new editors. These editors have also just begun editing Wikipedia; they may have had similar experiences as you. Come share your experiences, ask questions, and get advice from your peers. I hope to see you there! Dathus ( I'm a Teahouse host) This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot ( talk) 16:09, 16 August 2014 (UTC) |
Hi MuzickMaker,
I am not an experienced editor at all and it has been some time since I edited Wikipedia. So your faith in my ability is probably very much misplaced. I will however have a look atthe article and will systematically work through it. I have to warn you however that this might be a long and draining process if there are lots of disagreement.
So I will have a look and let's start together chomping at the bit.
ShiningWolf ( talk) 10:56, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
I would love to hear what your overall thoughts are. Just general impressions. The page is already embroiled in a significant dispute and administrators has been invited in. The discussion is already hard and heavy and will be until the administrators look it all over. You may want to wait until Admin has made some decisions. Once those are in we will at least have a direction. In the mean time, please read everything over. One question. Are you familiar with NCMI?
Thanks
MuzickMaker ( talk) 17:03, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi muzickmaker. i just saw your posting at COIN and looked over the talk page of the NCMI article. Some advice for you:
(and by the way, I realize this is kind of a walloftext! ironic. but i did break it down in bullet points for you) Jytdog ( talk) 00:27, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Hey. Sorry it's taken me awhile to respond to your message. I am currently enrolled in a Master of Arts in Teaching program, so I've been a little busy. I will take a look at the NCMI article. I have to say I am not familiar with this group, but that may be a good thing because I can approach the article from a less biased perspective than someone who approves or disapproves of it. I do have a lot of familiarity with American Pentecostalism and Charismatic Christianity, so I do have a lot of background knowledge already.
The first thing I notice, just reading the lead section, is that it is quite wordy and some of the terminology is too academic sounding. We want this article to be well understood by the average English speaker. I'll probably read this article section by section and make changes as I go along. After I've read the entire article, I may be able to give more detailed feedback.
I'll try to see if I can find any other sources mentioning this group in academic journals. I've looked at the talk page. It seems that the dispute is over the characterization of the NCMI as white dominated, patriarchal, and cult-like? Wikipedia is all about reliable sources ( WP: Reliable sources) and verifiability ( WP:Verifiability). If the available sources report this, Wikipedia is kind of required to say that this is what the reliable sources report. However, what reliable sources say can be twisted to put an organization in a bad light as well. In any case, we have to tread lightly and always maintain a neutral point of view ( WP:NPOV). If you know of any other reliable sources (preferably third party sources), then that would be the best way to make the article more accurate because instead of just presenting the findings of a few sources, we can present multiple evaluations of the organization. Ltwin ( talk) 02:18, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello, MuzickMaker, 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 click here to ask for help here on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome!
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:33, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi MuzickMaker! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Come join other new editors at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a space where new editors can get help from other new editors. These editors have also just begun editing Wikipedia; they may have had similar experiences as you. Come share your experiences, ask questions, and get advice from your peers. I hope to see you there! Dathus ( I'm a Teahouse host) This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot ( talk) 16:09, 16 August 2014 (UTC) |
Hi MuzickMaker,
I am not an experienced editor at all and it has been some time since I edited Wikipedia. So your faith in my ability is probably very much misplaced. I will however have a look atthe article and will systematically work through it. I have to warn you however that this might be a long and draining process if there are lots of disagreement.
So I will have a look and let's start together chomping at the bit.
ShiningWolf ( talk) 10:56, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
I would love to hear what your overall thoughts are. Just general impressions. The page is already embroiled in a significant dispute and administrators has been invited in. The discussion is already hard and heavy and will be until the administrators look it all over. You may want to wait until Admin has made some decisions. Once those are in we will at least have a direction. In the mean time, please read everything over. One question. Are you familiar with NCMI?
Thanks
MuzickMaker ( talk) 17:03, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi muzickmaker. i just saw your posting at COIN and looked over the talk page of the NCMI article. Some advice for you:
(and by the way, I realize this is kind of a walloftext! ironic. but i did break it down in bullet points for you) Jytdog ( talk) 00:27, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Hey. Sorry it's taken me awhile to respond to your message. I am currently enrolled in a Master of Arts in Teaching program, so I've been a little busy. I will take a look at the NCMI article. I have to say I am not familiar with this group, but that may be a good thing because I can approach the article from a less biased perspective than someone who approves or disapproves of it. I do have a lot of familiarity with American Pentecostalism and Charismatic Christianity, so I do have a lot of background knowledge already.
The first thing I notice, just reading the lead section, is that it is quite wordy and some of the terminology is too academic sounding. We want this article to be well understood by the average English speaker. I'll probably read this article section by section and make changes as I go along. After I've read the entire article, I may be able to give more detailed feedback.
I'll try to see if I can find any other sources mentioning this group in academic journals. I've looked at the talk page. It seems that the dispute is over the characterization of the NCMI as white dominated, patriarchal, and cult-like? Wikipedia is all about reliable sources ( WP: Reliable sources) and verifiability ( WP:Verifiability). If the available sources report this, Wikipedia is kind of required to say that this is what the reliable sources report. However, what reliable sources say can be twisted to put an organization in a bad light as well. In any case, we have to tread lightly and always maintain a neutral point of view ( WP:NPOV). If you know of any other reliable sources (preferably third party sources), then that would be the best way to make the article more accurate because instead of just presenting the findings of a few sources, we can present multiple evaluations of the organization. Ltwin ( talk) 02:18, 19 October 2014 (UTC)