User talk:Ronunruh

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Evangelical Free Church of Canada appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 12:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, Ronunruh, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using 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 ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 12:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Evangelical Free Church of Canada

Hi. I have reverted your addition again. I know who you are, being myself a former member of the EFCC before my local congregation (Montreal QC) was forced to shut down. I even think we've met in person once. I am also the creator of the article. I see a lot of problems with the wording of your addition for an encyclopedia. Please be aware that Wikipedia is not, has never been, and never will be a webspace provider.

Also, I think you should be aware that the article was recently nominated for deletion, a discussion which was closed prematurely with a keep decision based mainly on the fact the nomination was done in bad faith by a vandal who wanted to retaliate against me for nominating his article (a blatant hoax) for deletion.

1. The statement of faith is way too long compared to the rest of the article. It should be summarized in no more than one or two sentences, maybe referring to articles about the EFCA for more information. But personally, I believe a simple external link would be sufficient, and would do a lot to make sure the article does not have to go through yet another deletion discussion (that is, a legitimate one).
2. The word "we" has no place in an encyclopedia article. The article must not look like it's been written by someone strongly involved. Would you trust an article on Nazi Germany that was written by Adolf Hitler?
3. Statements such as At all levels, there is a solemn commitment to safeguard the spiritual and theological heritage of the EFCC have no place in an encyclopedia article either. An encyclopedia article should not contain statements of intent: only statements about how the intended goals have actually been achieved (or failed!) in the past are acceptable, and such statements must be solidly backed up by third-party sources. In the minds of the vast majority of editors here, statements of intent are automatically considered promotional.

This said, I encourage you to expand the article on the EFCC, but please do so in such a way that the article does not look like Wikipedia has provided web space to the Church. For more information, please look at Wikipedia's policy on conflict of interest. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Ronunruh. You have new messages at Blanchardb's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.