User talk:Blockchainattorney

October 2018

Hello, I'm Donner60. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Yoo Byung-eun— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 03:49, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Content supported by reliable, verifiable sources cannot be deleted on the unsupported and unsourced allegation that it is false. If you have verifiable evidence that it is false, put it on the talk page where it can be checked and note this in an edit summary.

As further information, please see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Wikipedia is not a forum, blog, soapbox, fan site or advice site. It is an encyclopedia based on reliable, verifiable, third-party sources. It does not publish rumors, personal opinions, commentary, advocacy, original research or unsourced information likely to be changed, challenged or disputed. See also Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, Wikipedia:Five Pillars, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, Wikipedia:Citing sources, Help:Footnotes, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. For further information about contributing to Wikipedia, see: Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners; Getting started; Introduction to Wikipedia; Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset; Wikipedia:Simplified Manual of Style; Help:Introduction to talk pages; Wikipedia:Copyright Problems and Help:Contents. Thank you. Donner60 (talk) 03:51, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Yoo Byung-eun. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Donner60 (talk) 03:52, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

HI DONNER60, I AM HAPPY TO DO PROVIDE VERIFIABLE, PROVEN AND RELIABLE SOURCES TO SUBSTANTIATE AND WARRANT THE DELETIONS. I WILL DO SO TOMORROW. JUST NOTE THAT IN SEVERAL ARTICLES THAT ARE PRESENTLY USED AS REFERENCES, AT THE BOTTOM OF THE ARTICLES, THE AUTHOR/PUBLISHER MAKES SEVERAL FOOTNOTES TO HIGHLIGHT WHAT IS ACTUALLY TRUE.

Blockchainattorney, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Blockchainattorney! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Lectonar (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:06, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

October 2018

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Evangelical Baptist Church of Korea, you may be blocked from editing.

You can't remove several paragraphs based on the fact that the church asked to have a footnote added to one of the many references. Use the article's talk page to discuss any changes you want to make. Thank you. bonadea contributions talk 17:41, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Why are the URLs to the church's website not used in lieu of news articles? For example, if you visit the Wikipedia page for Redeemer Presbyterian Church, the reference used to support the content is the URL to the church's website (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redeemer_Presbyterian_Church_(New_York_City)). How and why does this not apply to EBC or ELC?

RESPONSE TO USER, BONADEA

@Bonadea:Hi Bonadea,

Why are the URLs to the church's website not used in lieu of news articles? For example, if you visit the Wikipedia page for Redeemer Presbyterian Church, the reference used to support the Wikipedia content is the URL to the church's website (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redeemer_Presbyterian_Church_(New_York_City)). How and why does this not apply to EBC or ELC?

No Wikipedia article should be sourced mainly to the website of the article's subject. Wikipedia is, basically, not interested in what an entity has to say about itself, but what reliable indpendent sources with a reputation for fact-checking has to say about it - see this information. If another article is based on primary sources, it should probably be fixed, too (note however that some uncontroversial information can be sourced to primary sources such as a church website - but secondary sources should never be replaced with primary ones!) --bonadea contributions talk 19:29, 8 October 2018 (UTC)