Hello, Wkdemers, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Jesus Witnesses, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may soon be deleted.
There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Zachlipton (talk) 06:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, Jesus Witnesses. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - New Testament. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will to continue helping improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at New Testament - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.
If you think that the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Zachlipton (talk) 06:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Zachlipton (talk) 06:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
Sorry, but the links that i have provided are the policies here - there's nothing simpler. IMO this organization does not have adequate reliable and independent sources to be included here. Skier Dude (talk) 09:02, 16 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 07:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
My apologies; contacting me via talk page was not vandalism. I was working quickly and saw shouting (your "LET THE TRUTH PREVAIL" bit), so I assumed the worst. Your changes to Religious denomination, however, appeared to be, although I now suspect they may have been in a misguided form of good faith. Regardless, you are using Wikipedia as a pulpit for your own religious convictions, which is not allowed. Angrysockhop(talk to me) 07:37, 17 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
I would advise taking the matter up on the article's talk page, where input from others can be gathered, before submitting major changes directly to the article page. And I'm sorry if I was a bit short-tempered earlier; I deal with a lot of less-than ethical editors, such as the ip who also commented on my talk page who insisted Pennsylvania is in the Middle East (and now demands I perform oral sex on him). Seeing too much of the bad makes you forget that others may be actually trying. Angrysockhop(talk to me) 08:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
It appears you have a strong point of view regarding relgion; please remember here on the Wiki we recite the established academic material in neutral off-hand prose. Phrases such as "counterfeit version" and "scriptural proof" are inappropriate and not encyclopaedic. We are not here to tell the truth, advocate a particular religion as accurate or anything else. --Errant(chat!) 13:12, 17 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
Hi, thanks fir your reply. Firstly a piece of general advice; here on WP it is best to contribute in normal sentences without non-standard use of caps, it helps to give credence to what you are saying and helps people follow along with your words.
If that be the case then there is no need for the Wiki site because truth equal fact equal verifiable equal ACCURACY; what I meant to address there is your used of the statement "LET TRUTH PREVAIL", one of the most important things to understand about Wikipedia is that we are not necessarily concerned with discerning what is the "TRUTH", instead we simply record what verifiable sources discuss about a subject. Also such a statement is a classic sign of someone with a strong point of view; when you are editing try to remember that other valid points of view exist and consider if they should be given equal weight.
Please, use better discretion when reviewing edits that are outside your area of expertise; FWIW modern religons and ancient religious history is one of my main areas of expertise. I don't edit those topics on WP because, frankly, it is impossible to do so without running into POV warriors on both sides.W
The DESCRIPTIVE TERM "counterfeit version" is to IDENTIFY a CERTAIN ; counterfeit is pejorative term, meaning it's use casts the subject in a bad light. Now, I am not implying that you deliberately used the term to disparage the idea a of religious denominations, I feel it is probably a case of a language barrier (where the meaning has become distorted in translation). But it's use was inappropriate in this case because it expressed an unsourced interpretation - we try to stick to facts and widely held opinion, and then carefully attribute narrower opinion.
nor is "scriptural proof" "anti-encyclopedic"; scriptural proof is quite a strong phrase and not one academics would use as the standard term (it's certainly not one I have come across often). The other issue is that it presents the sentence from the point of view of the believer, which is a problem because it doesn't properly explain that this is a belief born out of a reading of the scripture. We try for simple, accurate off-hand descriptions of material where possible - and more importantly we present it from a neutral point of view and not from the point of view (in this case) of the believer. Your edits made the introduction very difficult to understand for a non-believer.
you reverted MY HARD WORK reprimanding me using a INVALID statements; I understand entirely your frustration. I have been here four years and some of the work I spent weeks writing in my first years is totally gone now - replaced by new expanded or rewritten content. That is just the way it is. We just have to shrug and carry on in my opinion :)
Hopefully this has been a useful reply, I'm watching your talk page so feel free to respond here and I will see it. --Errant(chat!) 18:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
In addition to ErrantX's well-written points, I want to emphasize to you that one of our core policies is verifiability, not truth. We are not here to present one view of "the truth." Rather, our goal is to present verifiable information in a neutral way. Your version of the truth may vary from my version of the truth. To settle these disputes, we cite reliable secondary sources that verify our claims. We then present conflicting information giving due weight to the significance of those views. In other words, popular theories of "the truth" will receive substantial coverage, while less popular theories will receive minimal or no coverage, in proportion to the viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources. Accordingly, if you want your material to be included in Wikipedia, you need to cite reliable secondary sources for your statements. Note that Biblical citations are primary sources; secondary sources would be commentary by prominent scholars in the field. These citations should demonstrate the verifiability of your statements as well as the extent to which they are accepted by the theological community. And yes, as mentioned above, others will take you more seriously if you use standard English without capitalizing words unnecessarily. Thanks and feel free to let me know if you have any questions. Zachlipton (talk) 18:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Unfortunately I have had to revert your recent changes here as they were only backed up by what appears to be an advertisement for one small church. You would also do better to avoid randomly capitalising your posts and giving us your opinion of the truth rather than sourcing it. Britmax (talk) 18:06, 17 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
Good luck with that, do remember to source from the Bible and not an interpretation of it. I think you mean "if it is considered reliable", by the way. Advice on referencing is better obtained from someone better at it than I am but you can sign your posts with four tildes (4 x ~). The block capitals (LET ACCURACY PREVAIL!) looks like shouting when written down, and you could do without it. Britmax (talk) 18:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
I'll follow up Britmax's excellent advice with an additional point about primary and secondary sources. See WP:PRIMARY for more information. That policy states: "any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." The bible is most certainly a primary source. As such, you can quote biblical passages for illustrative purposes, used sparingly, but you shouldn't use them as citations for your claims, because then you are supplying your own interpretation of the text, which is original research. Instead, you would need to reference other reliable sources that have reached those conclusions, such as writings by prominent theologians (secondary sources). Hope this helps clarify things. Zachlipton (talk) 18:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
"He is stating FACT here and God is His verifiable source to this statement according to 1jn. 5:7 below, what further verifiable source are you going to require of Him?" Everyone is welcome to believe in whatever they want according to whatever standards of evidence and/or faith they wish to use. However, when it comes to Wikipedia articles, we have to have criteria to ensure the reliability of our information. That criteria is explained at WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:OR. The Bible is subject to a myriad of interpretations throughout history. What you view as "simple and common sense knowledge based on 6th grade level English" may be quite different from someone else's interpretation. You claim that the Bible is a secondary source, but it is, in fact, a primary source: an original work created directly during the period under study. Our policies (WP:PRIMARY) are very clear on the fact that interpretations of primary sources require reliable secondary sources. There have been literally thousands of notable scholars throughout history who have published works analyzing every word of the Bible. Citing such authorities demonstrates that at least some credence should be attached to the interpretation you are adding to an article and avoids violating the original research policy.
More fundamentally, I get the sense you haven't really grasped our practice of writing in a neutral point of view, one of the most important parts of encyclopedic writing on Wikipedia. Our articles do not seek to advocate opinions. Rather, they describe the views stated by various reliable sources in proportion to the prominence of the viewpoints. Your quest to "LET ACCURACY PREVAIL" (and again, I remind you that people here will take you more seriously if you do not use all capital letters in this way) is rather contrary to this effort of neutrality we strive for. In this context, "accuracy" is your particular interpretation of the source material. You're welcome to hold any interpretation you desire, but you are not welcome to use Wikipedia to advocate for that opinion. "Verifiability not truth" is one of our main guidelines; Wikipedia does not promote a single truth, but instead describes verifiable opinions from reliable sources in a neutral way.
In other words, accuracy doesn't prevail on Wikipedia, verifiable information does. I hope this helps further clarify things. Zachlipton (talk) 05:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
I'm going to try to be brief in my writing as I realize you guys have alot of text to pour over. First I must admit I've been a bit hypocritical here as I have the same problem I've been accusing you guys of, namely -i don't thoroughly read or I rush through a piece-, I get bored with reading now in my old age really quick LOL! I see all you guys trying to help someone who is new to the "behind-the-scenes" of WP (me) and I also know you guys most likely shared in some if not all of my frustration that stems purely from BEING new here and "feeling it out". Keyword FEELING it out. I admit, I have not really read the directions in detail, I suppose I may be misunderstood because of my zeal and lack of knowledge of the workings of this system. Please be patient with me as I'm not here trying to cause trouble or find enemies (God knows I have enough of them LOL) or create extra work for you guys. I would like to see some things be put in order; made more clear and concise. That is what prompted me to try my hand at this to begin with.
I wanted to write the text below correctly but It's not done and I'm really tired so I want to let it lay here for the time being. Just ignore it for now. Thank-you
(for the speed-readers) Please read (digest) my definitions more slowly. :) If you breeze through my writing you are liable to miss a great deal of important, pertinent and relevant direction and detail and cannot grow to appreciate that my definitions are not biased shallow or vain by any means but by all means ACCURATE, concise and correct. Thank-you.
I must offer apologies to Zach, Skier Dude, angrysockhop, errant (not in order) and signbot ok well maybe not signbot :P But I appreciate you guys for bringing out better by limiting me. I apologize for being snappy and rude. I just didn't understand, i knew something was wrong, I just couldn't nail it at the time. Anyways. I look forward to working with you guys. Peace
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Regarding this comment. I have reverted it because you cannot treat another editor like that. See the talk page guidelines for making comments on talk pages. See WP:HARASS for more information about treating other editors. And see the welcome page about contributing to Wikipedia. Thanks. LordPorchcropPOWER 08:43, 21 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
If you wish to sign your posts on talk pages, at the end of the post add four tildes. Above the # on your keyboard, (well on mine anyway), three keys to the right of the L you will find a small character that looks like this ~. If you add four of these to the end of the message, when you save the message the system will sign for you. It will produce a similar signature to this one here, Britmax (talk) 10:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC) except that it will be your signature, not mine. Hope this helps.Reply
Thank-you very much for checking up on me. :) I really appreciate it as you may be the very first act of recognizable kindness here LOL! (please excuse me anyone I didn't recognize as being kind LOL!) ok, signiature? Hows this??? Wkdemers (talk) 11:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
On the left of the page is a list titled "toolbox" within which is "User Contributions". I can see the edits you have made here, and you can when reading my page, for instance, see mine. (As an aside you can see your own by referring to "My Contributions" at the top of the page). Any questions you may have I will try to answer, or point you toward someone I think can help. A usual caveat to these things is to remind you that we are all volunteers (even, apparently, Jimbo), and you may have to wait for a reply. Britmax (talk) 11:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
Hello, Wkdemers. You have new messages at Talk:Religious denomination. Message added 05:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Religious denomination has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Angrysockhop (talk to me) 06:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 07:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
