Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello Veritasandlux! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! XLinkBot (talk) 05:30, 13 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago9 comments4 people in discussion
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Rodney Howard-Browne has been reverted. Your edit here to Rodney Howard-Browne was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_S1deX_DCA0&list=PLLDcOBdOcvB9-f80lR_rjQru4_sDdaS0l&index=2) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. music or video) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy, as well as other parts of our external links guideline. If the information you linked to is indeed in violation of copyright, then such information should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file, or consider linking to the original. If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 05:30, 13 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
Hello Robby, it is totally unacceptable what you have done. I have added materials with footnotes to book publications including such as a dictionary, and you have removed everything. In this case, I will have to report vandalism. Why did you remove everything? I am willing to discuss, and we may have a different views, but encyclopedia, including wikipedia, is not a research project, but should be based on reliable sources. Definitely book published by Zondervan and other publishers etc. are reliable sources. Please explain before I come back to editing as I do not want to go back and forward every day with editing. Best. Veritasandlux (talk) 01:42, 15 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
Yes, Wikipedia should be based on reliable sources. Of all the sources you inserted, the Zondervan book might be the only source that could be considered reliable by Wikipedia standards. It is used to support the claim that it "compares Howard-Browne meetings to great revivals under […]" – I doubt that. Please continue discussion of content relating to the article at Talk:Rodney Howard-Browne. Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 09:30, 15 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
How is autobiography of Oral Roberts not reliable source? How is the RT Kendall statement not a reliable source? And other books. Have you even checked them? It seems like not at all because all of them are published materials. You are doing it all in bad faith which violets the standards of wikipedia!
And are you a better scholar than those who wrote the info to a Dictionary? You can doubt that, as you wrote, and I can doubt other things that you post, but if the source is reliable you have no right to delete it! It is not your doubt that matters but the official information. If you doubt then write a scholarly article on that matter and discuss the content of dictionary and put it then into the wikipedia. Otherwise your doubts are not the ground for the encyclopedia entries!
I am going to reverse what you did because "your doubts" are not reliable sources for such actions! Veritasandlux (talk) 14:40, 15 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
I did look over the sources you added, yes. Not all "published materials" are equally reliable. Wikipedia requires scholarly sources, an autobiography does not fit the bill, and neither Oral Roberts nor R.T. Kendall are scholars.
I don't doubt the Dictionary. I doubt that it supports the claims you attribute to it, for example, that it speaks of "great revivals". Unfortunately, I do not have access to the Dictionary so I cannot verify the claims myself.
Again, if you want to continue discussion of issues related to the Rodney Howard-Browne article, please take it to the article Talk page: Talk:Rodney Howard-Browne. Robby.is.on (talk) 15:18, 15 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
Absolutely unacceptable behavior. You do not have access to the encyclopedia and on this basis you make a deletion. Unbelievable. If this is what your editions are, you can delete 90% of all articles on Wikipedia. I will ask you, until you check yourself (which will only proof how wrong you are), back those entries that refer to the encyclopedia, because deleting them is absolutely an abuse and I do not intend to waste time re-posting because a person with no access does what he wants to act in bad faith.
Veritasandlux, please do NOT use autobiographies as sources, certainly not if you are going to present "facts" based on those autobiographies as if they were gospel truth. In addition, you can't make claims like "Thousands of pastors around the world..." without secondary sourcing, and then stuffing that paragraph with Facebook posts and church's websites. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 14:43, 15 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
You are wrong, which only shows that you are acting in bad faith. Autobiography is not a reliable source for any scientific claim, but certainly when it comes to quoting what the author said or thought about a person, the autobiography is the most credible source. In this context, it was used in my quotation. It is absolutely incredible how much you act in bad faith. Veritasandlux (talk) 03:27, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Drmies (talk) 16:17, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
Despite the first words of this edit summary, you are not actually contributing to any discussion. Your edits clearly do not find consensus, and your comment above suggests you also lack some understanding of some core aspects of Wikipedia, including the need for reliable secondary sourcing and for neutral language. Drmies (talk) 16:19, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
Hello, I'm Robby.is.on. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Rodney Howard-Browne, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Robby.is.on (talk) 11:06, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
