User talk:Rdaenot

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could 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) 04:40, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Sunday School Publishing Board

A tag has been placed on Sunday School Publishing Board, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

it appears to be a simple copy-and-paste from another article,

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, 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. Jasper Deng (talk) 03:04, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to draft, do so in your userspace.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May 2011

Hello Rdaenot. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Jasper Deng (talk) 03:05, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not escalate the edit war at NBC USA, Inc.

I don't like the way things are going at NBC USA, Inc. Edit warring isn't pretty. I'm filing a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. --Orlady (talk) 20:34, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a link to the report I filed: [1]. --Orlady (talk) 20:44, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Rdaenot, please see the above report. I am one of the admins who often close those complaints. At first glance it looks bad for you. If you are thinking of responding this would be a good time to reply. There are many ways to reach a negotiated solution about this article, so trying to force your own view into the article isn't wise. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 23:21, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

EdJohnston, thanks for weighing in. I am not forcing my view but protesting Orlady forcing one view. The wording that she uses on the article is not balanced and ignores the issues concerning the membership numbers of this organization. The source she wants to use as the authority conflicts with their own claim of how the numbers are derived. I hope that you look at both sides before making a decision on this one. I am not forcing my view but simply trying to make sure that one view that is clearly conflicted is not used as the authority. If I'm wrong then I'll stand corrected and move on. Thanks again. Rdaenot (talk) 01:26, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure you mean well, but you are wrong as to what you want in the article (for now, at least), but more importantly you are wrong to continue reverting when several other editors have weighed-in against your position based on good policy arguments. The article now notes who says what; there is no debate it is accurate (it does not say that either the organization or the Yearbook are accurate or inaccurate), straightforward and well sourced. On the article's talk, a couple of us have suggested ways you could possibly convince editors to change things, but reverting won't do it. Novaseminary (talk) 01:55, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Novaseminary, I then stand corrected for reverting the edits. I don't insist that the article read the exact wording that I've been reverting back to the last several times. I am simply protesting the bigger issue and that is Orlady insists on using the National Council Churches' membership numbers as an authority when the National Council of Churches claims its numbers came from NBCUSA in 2010 and the numbers conflict with what NBCUSA reports from several sources as late as 2012. The stated mechanism by National Council of Churches to gather membership numbers is to ask the denomination, "what are your membership numbers?' Why does Orlady insist on using only the National Council of Churches and refuses to use the World Council of Churches? I'm just saying that what Orlady wants to do is not balanced. I'll submit wording that I believe is more neutral and let you guys be the judge. Rdaenot (talk) 03:45, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not insisting on using only the National Council of Churches number. I want the article to report both the number on the NBC website and the number reported by the National Council of Churches. As I stated on the article talk page, given that (1) the World Council uses data supplied by the denomination, (2) the World Council webpage lists the same number that is currently on the NBC website, and (3) the World Council webpage hasn't been updated since 2006, I see no value in including a citation to the World Council webpage as a second source for the membership number obtained from the NBC website. --Orlady (talk) 15:58, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Usage of multiple accounts

Rdaenot, please be aware that reverting the same article with both your registered account and an IP violates our policy on WP:SOCK. Up til now, this might be excused due to your lack of experience, but it should not continue. Sockpuppetry is a frequent reason for blocking. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:34, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

EdJohnston I forget to sign in sometime--I assure you that it's not intentional. I'll try to do better. Rdaenot (talk) 20:45, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you use the same computer consistently -- and don't share it with others -- you can choose to "stay signed in for up to 180 days" (I forget the exact wording and I'm not inclined to sign out right now so can I check it). That feature definitely helps me avoid getting logged out in mid-session! --Orlady (talk) 22:24, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]