Hello: We need to talk about the image of your church in regard to it appearing on the Richardsonian Romanesque page. The wikipedia article - which I think you wrote most if not all of refer to it as being built "in the syle of Old English Gothic with a Richardsonian Romanesque flavor." the images at the RR page are supposed to be the best examples of the style, not ones with that flavor. I believe that when I first removed the image I first went to the NRHP listing and there is no mention of RR style at all. So, for the sake of discussion, what is the RR "flavor" found in the building? Einar aka Carptrash ( talk) 03:41, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Have you looked at the picture of Trinity Church (Boston) and compared it with either of the churches that you have mentioned? I see very little in common with it. Your source seems to feel that any church built with rusticated field stone is RR. I disagree. Carptrash ( talk) 05:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia is, in my opinion more than the world's best encyclopedia. It is also a great social experiment as to whether folks from all over the world with the complete spectrum of beliefs can get together and create something wonderful. Mostly we are. I have something like 1,500 articles on my watchlist and I try and make sure that nothing that doesn't belong in the article gets in. You might stick with just watching 3 or 4, but if you do then those articles will be okay. Others spend their time making sure that the rules are all obeyed and are more than willing to quote you chapter and verse on the subject. That is why it is sometimes useful to have allies that you can go to. So welcome on board. Carptrash ( talk) 17:55, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello Pmucpastor. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things
you have written about in the article
Pullman Memorial Universalist Church, you may have a
conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.
All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about following the reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.
If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:
Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.
For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. -- Orange Mike | Talk 13:34, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for
your contributions. However, I noticed that your username (Pmucpastor) may not meet Wikipedia's
username policy because our policy
does not allow for usernames that represent an organization, like a church. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may ask for a
change of username, or you may simply create a new account to use for editing. Despite the concerns that have been expressed, I want to thank you for taking the time to participate at Wikipedia and I'm available to help with any questions you might have. --
Atama
頭
18:51, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello: We need to talk about the image of your church in regard to it appearing on the Richardsonian Romanesque page. The wikipedia article - which I think you wrote most if not all of refer to it as being built "in the syle of Old English Gothic with a Richardsonian Romanesque flavor." the images at the RR page are supposed to be the best examples of the style, not ones with that flavor. I believe that when I first removed the image I first went to the NRHP listing and there is no mention of RR style at all. So, for the sake of discussion, what is the RR "flavor" found in the building? Einar aka Carptrash ( talk) 03:41, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Have you looked at the picture of Trinity Church (Boston) and compared it with either of the churches that you have mentioned? I see very little in common with it. Your source seems to feel that any church built with rusticated field stone is RR. I disagree. Carptrash ( talk) 05:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia is, in my opinion more than the world's best encyclopedia. It is also a great social experiment as to whether folks from all over the world with the complete spectrum of beliefs can get together and create something wonderful. Mostly we are. I have something like 1,500 articles on my watchlist and I try and make sure that nothing that doesn't belong in the article gets in. You might stick with just watching 3 or 4, but if you do then those articles will be okay. Others spend their time making sure that the rules are all obeyed and are more than willing to quote you chapter and verse on the subject. That is why it is sometimes useful to have allies that you can go to. So welcome on board. Carptrash ( talk) 17:55, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello Pmucpastor. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things
you have written about in the article
Pullman Memorial Universalist Church, you may have a
conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.
All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about following the reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.
If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:
Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.
For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. -- Orange Mike | Talk 13:34, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for
your contributions. However, I noticed that your username (Pmucpastor) may not meet Wikipedia's
username policy because our policy
does not allow for usernames that represent an organization, like a church. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may ask for a
change of username, or you may simply create a new account to use for editing. Despite the concerns that have been expressed, I want to thank you for taking the time to participate at Wikipedia and I'm available to help with any questions you might have. --
Atama
頭
18:51, 22 July 2011 (UTC)