Help desk
< July 23	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 25 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

July 24[edit]

a problem[edit]

I am having difficulties with a person editing my posts on the link "Blessings of Same Sex Churches" Originally, I posted that the Bible does not endorse such things and provided scripture asserting such. That seems to have been deleted by someone calling themselves BroWCarey. I assumed perhaps I had put the issue in the wrong place, perhaps. The second area where I posted it is the title: "Theological differences between support and opposition" I figured that was the proper place to put my content. I wrote my comment, along with scripture supporting what I was saying. Well, he seems not to have liked that also. The title was for "Theological differences," yet, he censored mine and verged on accusing me of vandalism. I substantiated my assertions using scripture that is very clear, easy to read and easy to understand. The items I submitted were not a personal opinion. They were not another author's opinion. They were taken from the Word of God and what His views were on the issue. I do not believe I have done anything wrong and would appreciate this person stopped. Whomever has been editing this issue is not telling the entire truth on the matter and is misleading people. sincerely; sjluckins — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrs. PGL (talk • contribs) 00:54, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mrs. PGL. This is a content dispute. As such, it should be discussed on the article talk page, in this case Talk:Blessing of same-sex unions in Christian churches. You don't seem to have done that yet. But you should be aware that all Wikipedia articles must use the neutral point of view. People interpret the Christian scripture differently, and not all people concede that it is the "word of God". Wikipedia does not assume the truth of any religion. We can and do describe what various groups say, believe, and do, but we may not say that this or that position is correct according to scripture much less according to God. We can say that Person X asserts that this or that position is correct, and give their reasoning. But we must also give the views of others who hold different positions, if reliable sources cover them. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 02:30, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As indicated above, all articles on Wikipedia MUST be neutral in tone. Your edits were not. You posted scripture as "proof" that one understanding/interpretation is the only correct one, stating as much, and implying that those who believe otherwise are in error. That is not neutral. That some Christians do not support same-sex marriage is already documented in this article and others. That's all that needs to be said in that regard here. There are other articles that go into detail on why, for example List of Christian denominational positions on homosexuality. It is inappropriate to insert your belief that those churches opposing same-sex marriage are right, even with scripture quotes you believe support that view, and that all others are wrong. Doing so negates the neutrality of the article. I was not the only one to revert your edits. Continuing to edit an article in such a manner that destroys its objectivity and neutral tone does indeed suggest vandalism. It appears vandalism was not your intention, and that is good. But you do need to understand that an encyclopedia, including an online one, must maintain complete objectivity, not making pronouncements on who is right or wrong. I hope this helps you understand why your edits were reverted. BroWCarey (talk) 02:57, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gentlemen, I assume, forgive me if I'm in error. The comments - taken verbatim from the Bible - in a category asking for the "Theological differences" about a matter within the churches, and God's word is too extreme for you? Would it not just be easier to say that you don't want to know what Christ has taught on the matter and do not wish to expose it? Forgive me if I am doing this improperly, but I am very new to all of this and haven't quite figured things out as of yet. Is Wikipedia saying that God's word on Christian matters is too extreme? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎ Mrs. PGL (talk • contribs) 18:11, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mrs. PGL, I, for one, am saying that there are those who accept the Christian bible as God's word, and those who do not. Of those who do, some accept one version and some another; some interpret fairly literally, and some otherwise. It is not Wikipedia's role to judge which of these, if any, is correct. It is not Wikipedia's role to pronounce what religious truth is. It is Wikipedia's role, in some cases to say: "The Baptists Take view A, while the Methodists Take view B, and the Catholics take view C..." etc, provided that there are reliable sources to confirm which views what groups hold. A statement asserting, in Wikipedia's voice, what God's view is, is never appropriate anywhere on Wikipedia. (Note also that different editions translate the passages you have cited differently.) The heading "Theological differences" on a section of that article is unfortunate, and should probably be changed. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:44, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for your response. I would say in an article presumably discussing Church thoughts on an issue, a Christian perspective would be appreciated. I would certainly be interested in which translation disagrees with the translation I cited. Next, so if I were to say "a Baptist" view it would be more appropriate when the comments endorsing the marriage have no such title or category, they just endorse the action, so would you not then say they were improper? They claim to be of a church - as the article indicates, yet not defining which church - last I read, anyway. I believe you can now understand why I feel this is more about censoring, than truth. Please correct me if I am wrong. For instance, when discussing church positions, normally scripture is used. In this case, it is totally avoided, "These disagreements are primarily centered on the interpretation of various scripture passages related to homosexuality," What scripture are they referring to? thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrs. PGL (talk • contribs) 18:59, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mrs. PGL, You will see that each of the existing statements in the article section is cited to a specific source, naming the particular individual or group that has voiced that position. Your edit did not do this in any way. Yu included such statements as The Bible is the basis for Christian belief. and The Bible is the authority for Christians. without qualification or source, as if these were statements of fact, rather than of religious opinion. The article's Lead Section does currently say: These disagreements are primarily centered on the interpretation of various scripture passages related to homosexuality, and in some churches on varying understandings of homosexuality... and perhaps some section of the article should list some of those passages and the views of them taken by various individuals or groups. Provided always that a reliable source or sources for who has considered what passage to be significant to this issue, and what views they have stated, can be properly cited. Such an addition could be proposed at Talk:Blessing of same-sex unions in Christian churches which is the proper place to discuss what should and should not go into the article. Please continue this there, if at all.

Please in future sign your posts with four tildes, like this ~~~~ The software will replace them with your user name and a timestamp. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:14, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How to create my organisation's page?[edit]

Hi,

I wish to create a non-promotional page for my company. What would be the ideal flow? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmyWest (talk • contribs) 05:25, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AmyWest, you can sign your comments automatically using four tildes ~~~~. You should not write the article yourself; instead post a request at Wikipedia:Requested articles for the article to be created. See Wikipedia:Best practices for editors with conflicts of interest. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:55, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge[edit]

Ref number 19 is dead - but it does work if you re type. But should the dates of birth for Michael Middleton and wife be on the page at all? 2001:8003:4E8F:6D00:C90B:879C:59E:AC54 (talk) 10:59, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done I've tagged ref #19 as a {{dead link}}, and I don't see why their dates of birth shouldn't be on the page - but if you feel that they shouldn't, you should raise this at the article's talk page. Thanks for pointing this out! Seagull123 Φ 11:59, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AfD question[edit]

How does one close an AfD? The consensus for the following is clearly "keep". The corresponding article should be getting considerable traffic, since the subject is currently receiving international press coverage, (and the tag on top of page is distracting and ugly).

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stubbs (cat)

-- 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:1C:247F:9E77:82FF (talk) 15:52, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:CLOSEAFD. Eagleash (talk) 16:00, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have read that, and it seems that being neither an admin nor "nominator", closing this AfD is beyond the scope of this anonymous IP. — 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:1C:247F:9E77:82FF (talk) 16:23, 24 July 2017 (UTC) --P.s: I did find: " non-admins are encouraged to recommend a "speedy keep" in the body of the discussion", which I will do soon-ish (time permitting).[reply]

Other than the "distracting and ugly" tag, there's really no rush. Anyhow, from the looks of it, it will be closed early. Rivertorch^FIRE _WATER 17:05, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, per WP:NAC, only registered accounts may close formal discussions. TimothyJosephWood 21:02, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would have said "Fortunately" :) --S Philbrick (Talk) 21:18, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Empathy TimothyJosephWood 21:24, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While a keep outcome looks likely at the moment, there have been some strongly argued views for deletion, so a WP:SNOW close does not seem proper to me. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:33, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Heh, oops. Closed. ansh 666 23:01, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stupid question[edit]

This is of exactly zero importance, but how to I make the color of the userbox collapsed table on my user page match everything else? (I learned to computer before CSS was really a thing, and basically everything was written in HTML. I am a literal dinosaur.) TimothyJosephWood 21:05, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Timohty If I understand what you're looking for, you can replace:

{{Userboxtop|Boxes}}

With

{{Userboxtop|backgroundcolor=#B8860B|Boxes}}

Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:08, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Or is [1] what you want? It makes the box similar to the others. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:12, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yup PH. That's what I was going for. And in about ten previews I managed to jack with the formatting to make it do just about everything but exactly that. Much appreciated. TimothyJosephWood 01:44, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Took me about ten previews. I thought the color should be specified earlier. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:19, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]