User talk:Novaseminary

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Online Counselling[edit]

Hi Novaseminry, I notice that you have strong views in online counseling. I notied that you have tagged another paged and entered into a rather interesting converstation with another user. I am open to listening to your point of view, but I ask you to please stop section blanking the online counseling article. Please allow a discussion to take place before acting on your own. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.84.241.55 (talk) 00:21, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I have no strong view on this topic, and frankly care very little about it as a topic. I have been concerned in the past with that article becoming a venue for POV one way or the other, though. The place to discuss whether particular sentences and sources should be included is at Talk:Online_counseling#Original_research, not here. Novaseminary (talk) 00:37, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi Novaseminary. Sorry for not responding to your post. It looks like I did not notice it because someone else posted at exactly the same time. I am glad you got a prompt response at the 3RR board and everything got dealt with. Regards, -- Dianna (talk) 11:40, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks again. Everything did get taken care of rather speedily. Novaseminary (talk) 18:19, 14 April 2013 (UTC)


Re: Copied text warning[edit]

Thank you for your guidance about not copying text verbatim from the websites. I will try my level best to abide by the Wikipedia rules regarding adding information. Caleball (talk) 06:46, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Awolfram[edit]

I hope to avoid WP:BITE with Awolfram. (Also, BRD applies.) I mention this because I posted a COI message on Awolfram's talkpage already. This new user seems quite eager to learn the ropes. So the wholesale reversion of the section, vs. revision & improvement, may discourage this newbie. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 01:45, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

That is why I left this note on that ed's talk when I reverted it and explained myself in the edit summary. The material, even if it didn't have the problems it had, was at the wrong article. We could have revised and improved it to be two perfect (and perfectly referenced) sentences, and it still would not have worked at that article. Novaseminary (talk) 04:26, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
No problem. I see that Orlady has edited the Florida virtual high school article. She has my highest respect. With Orlady on the scene ("seen"), I will disengage. – S. Rich (talk) 05:05, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Doctor of Ministry[edit]

Novaseminary, I have a question about your removal of the photo I added to the Doctor of Ministry page. You said that the photo I added of doctoral candidates in academic regalia at their hooding ceremony was in "good faith", but did not "add to understanding of the subject." Would you have the same criticism of the Doctor of Arts, Doctor of Music, and Doctor of Divinity pages which all use photos of academic regalia? I was merely copying what I saw other similar pages doing and trying to add a relevant photo. -- Tytonidae (talk) 15:43, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Why did you revert my change to NCCAA?[edit]

First, you should not revert something just because there's no footnote or you're "not sure why" something is notable. See Wikipedia:Reverting "Revert vandalism and other abusive edits upon sight but revert a good faith edit only after careful consideration." Did you think my edit was vandalism or otherwise not in good faith? Please read the rest of the article to learn about proper use of revert.

The appropriate thing to do is add a citation needed tag or ask me about it. Reverting is not appropriate if . As to the source, this information is from the NCCAA website which I did not think was necessary to footnote. You'll note that there are no footnotes on the rest of the article either, all of which can be verified on the NCCAA website. Why didn't you remove all of that too? Actually, looking at the edit history I see that you were the one that added much of this unsourced material in edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_Christian_College_Athletic_Association&diff=next&oldid=489864483

Second, the NCCAA is qualitatively different from the other collegiate athletic associations and that is notable. Someone unfamiliar with the organization might naturally assume it is similar to the more well known NCAA or NAIA but it is not. Schools are not members of both NCAA and NAIA, for instance, but there are teams that are NCAA/NCCAA members as well as NAIA/NCCAA members. Maybe you can express that difference better.

Third, you removed the link to ACCA. Note that the NCAA article includes links to both NCCAA and ACCA. If that's appropriate for the NCAA article why is it not appropriate here?

I am not going to revert your revert and start an edit war. Please undo your revert and then make any additional edits you deem appropriate, e.g., adding footnotes or citation needed where you think necessary.

---Vroo (talk) 07:29, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#MobiCart in particular, and Jeremy112233 in general[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#MobiCart in particular, and Jeremy112233 in general. Thanks! —Unforgettableid (talk) 02:36, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Please see[edit]

Please see <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&diff=598497325&oldid=598497189>. I wrote you a tip there. Cheers! —Unforgettableid (talk) 03:19, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Please see my comments responding to your 6 April edits to Radiance Realty page[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Radiance_Realty — Preceding unsigned comment added by LuigiBarzini (talkcontribs) 16:26, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

North8000[edit]

Hi,

I was wondering if you would care to comment on this. Thanks! — goethean 13:21, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Catholic fiction[edit]

I would like to point out, in case it's not on your watchlist anymore, that a user has gone back and undone all your edits to Catholic fiction. I have no idea who's in the right; I just thought you should know. Ibadibam (talk) 18:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. This was a content fork of American Catholic literature that I redirected several years ago. This new editor undid that, and edits to the article I made before realizing there was already a more significant article, without discussion. I've re-redirected it. Novaseminary (talk) 20:27, 13 July 2014 (UTC)