User talk:Marshwiggle23

A belated welcome![edit]

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Marshwiggle23! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! User:Eagleash (talk) 15:21, 21 December 2022 (UTC) Eagleash (talk) 14:56, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted edits[edit]

Hi,

I reverted two of your recent edits to Brunstad Christian Church and explained why on the article's talk page. According to Wikipedia policy, Wikipedia does not publish original research, which is defined as "material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources. It also refers to any analysis or synthesis by Wikipedians of published material, where the analysis or synthesis advances a position not advanced by the sources." I have no problem with the material being included in the article if you can attribute it to a reliable published source, as required by the policy.

Cheers Wikipeterproject (talk) 23:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Marshwiggle23,

You posted the following reply on my talk page, which I have posted below, to ensure the continuity of the conversation:

(marsh 13:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)) Marshwiggle 23 - Dr. A.V. Koshy - terrestrian@gmail.com Dear Wikipeter project. You removed two of my edits to Brunstad Christian Church project stating they are original research. They are not. The sources are found in books published by BCC itself. Sice they are in book form and not available on the net as they have a private bookstore and the reliable sources do not contain the information I am giving you I am at a loss what to do next. Also: I do not know if this is the right place to write this. If not, forgive me and remove it but please inform me in messages how to get in touch with you to discuss how such information can be included in case the sources are there and verifiable but not available due to contingencies such as the ones I have stated Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marshwiggle23 (talk • contribs) 13:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

You can respond here, I have the page on "watch", so I'll see when/if you post here. I'll try to explain why your edit was original research, based on the Wikipedia policy, which is published at Wikipedia:No original research. Your edit is below in italics, with my comments in normal fornt and parentheses.

The BCC believes in kenosis. Ref. "Gospel of God" by Sigurd Bratlie and "Christ manifest in the flesh" by Elias Aslaksen. (If the book you mention says that BCC believes in kenosis, add a citation referencing the book and the page number where that is written.))'

...(both, English trans.) which states that Jesus had sin in the flesh. This dissolves the concept of the Trinity. (What you have done here, by the look of it, is added your own analysis of a point of doctrine (that Jesus had "sin in the flesh) with the disolution of the concept of the Trinity. You would need to find a reliable secondary source that supports this and includie it as a cited reference. For example "X contends that this doctrine dissolves the concept of the Trinity".)

...The word Trinity is not found in any of their books, the justification being that it is not found in the Bible too, which is correct. (It looks like you have research their books and found that the Trinity is not mentioned. Again, you would need a secondary source that confirms this, otherise it is, by definition, your own original research.)

...They also quote or accept only songs by other selected "holy" Christians from the past, the only contemporary to escape this being Jessie Penn Lewis because J.O. Smith vouched for her bein in the Spirit in his letters, implying that from the time of J.O. Smith all other groups are wrong. (Who, other than you, has researched this? Is it published in a reliable secondary source? If so, add the citation and word it in a way that refers to the source. Otherwise it is your own original research and analysis.)

...These facts can be verified if their song books and hymnals and publications like The Way, Hidden Treasures and books by the church elders are studied. (This is not a reference - it is stating where you got the primary information for your own analysis above. I'm not commenting on the quality of your analysis - it's just that in Wikipedia, you can't include your own original thoughts, conclusions or interpretation of primarty sources. You need a reliable secondary source to support what you write. In other words, someone else has had to say it and published it in a reliable publication.)

...The original are not released to the common public and the translations keep changing, apparently for improvement but also for guarding of doctrinal issues so that the core message - "Jesus' victory over sin as a human being is the basis for personal victory over sin and transformation into Jesus' image" - is kept intact but restated in language that was once clear but now slightly more ambiguous. (Same as above - do you have a reliable secondary source to support this? You would need a source for the statement (that the "original are not released to the common public and the translations keep changing" and also a source that supports your claimed reason for this, i.e. that it is "for improvement but also for guarding of doctrinal issues so that the core message".)

...This theolgical postion is closer to that of Jehovah's Witnesses than to that of mainstream Christianity.It is due to the books by the elders being given as much importance as Scripture per se. (Again, you would need a reliable secondary source for this claim. Where have you read this, or is it your own conclusion? If the latter, it is original research. If the former, include the reference and rewrite the sentence to say something like "X writes that this theological position is...")

As I said above, I am not commenting on your statements per se and not debating this because of the actual content of your edit. This is a question of upholding the Wikipedia policy of no original research and, I believe, unless you can demonstrate that the edit isn't your own analysis, it will always be disputed and removed from the article. If, on the other hand, you can support your edits with reliable secondary sources, there is no grounds for it to be removed (assuming it meets the other two core content criteria od neutral point of view and verifiability. I hope this helps!

Regards,

Wikipeterproject (talk) 14:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation[edit]

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The invention of the Roseate Sonnet..
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page. Please remember to link to the submission!
You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 14:54, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The invention of the Roseate Sonnet. concern[edit]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The invention of the Roseate Sonnet., a page you created, has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 18:17, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The invention of the Roseate Sonnet.[edit]

Hello Marshwiggle23. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "The invention of the Roseate Sonnet.".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The invention of the Roseate Sonnet.}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. DGG ( talk ) 09:06, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Koshy AV (December 21)[edit]

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

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you.

The comment the reviewer left was:

This draft does not currently present as a usable Wikipedia item. Please review WP:YFA, WP:MOS and WP:REFB.

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 User:Marshwiggle23/Koshy AV 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.

Eagleash (talk) 14:11, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Marshwiggle23! 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! Eagleash (talk) 14:11, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

December 2022[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions; however, it appears you may have written a Wikipedia article, or a draft for a Wikipedia article, about yourself. Creating an autobiography is strongly discouraged – please see our guideline on writing autobiographies. If you create such an article, it may be deleted. If what you have done in life is genuinely notable and can be verified according to our policy for articles about living people, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later (see Wikipedians with articles). If you wish to add to or change an existing article about yourself, you are welcome to propose the changes by visiting the article's talk page. Please understand that this is an encyclopedia and not a personal web space or social networking site. If your article has already been deleted, please see: Why was the page I created deleted?, and if you feel the deletion was an error, please discuss this with the deleting administrator. Thank you.

Hello, Marshwiggle23. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam#External link spamming);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 14:58, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding User:Marshwiggle23/Koshy AV[edit]

Hello, Marshwiggle23. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that User:Marshwiggle23/Koshy AV, 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) 15:02, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, User:Marshwiggle23/Koshy AV[edit]

Hello, Marshwiggle23. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Koshy AV".

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!} 06:53, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]