User talk:CatM58

Welcome!

Hello, CatM58, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one of your contributions does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{Help me}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Drmies (talk) 22:54, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please have a look at the Manual of Style, which is already linked above. Your addition of funky font colors is not OK--I would urge you to follow the edits I have made already and bring the rest of the article in line with the manual. I am not sure why you continue making such edits when I've explained in various edit summaries what the problems are, but I can tell you that persistence here will not pay off. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 01:49, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Drmies (talk) 02:22, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cecil Murphey

Hi. You keep adding unacceptable sources for the contention that Murphey received an honorary doctorate, since each of them were obviously re-printing material that had been provided to them by Murphey. You're going to need either a mention in a newspaper or magazine that is considered to be reliable about Murphey receiving the doctorate, and not simply mentioning it in the course of regurgitating a PR release. Alternately, if you can find a press release from the seminary itself announcing the award, that would be fine -- but I was unable to find anything like that when I looked for it. In the meantime, it will save us both time and energy if you would stop putting in sources which aren't going to be acceptable. Thanks, Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:13, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response

Hello, CatM58. You have new messages at Bielle's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Cecil Murphey

I have started a discussion on the talk page of the article Cecil Murphey in which you might have an on-going interest. All contributions are welcome. Bielle (talk) 15:42, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Editing with a conflict of interest

It is clear from your comments and actions that you are in some way connected with Cecil Murphey. Please read this page and follow the recommended protocol there for editing with a conflict of interest. The executive summary is that you should stop making edits directly to the article, and instead make suggestion on Talk:Cecil Murphey, which will then be acted upon -- or not -- by other unbiased and unconflicted editors. This is to help prevent your clear bias towards Murphey from unbalancing the article. Thans. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:07, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have a better idea. Why don't you and everyone else continue ripping apart this page without me until nothing remains. From this point forward, I will not have anymore interactions with this website, therefore stop the email alerts! FYI, my having a connection with Cecil Murphey has nothing to do with my comments and actions of late. Being told that I'm attempting to falsify information in order to magnify Cecil Murphey's credibility as a successful writer however does. In the future, you and your co-workers need to understand and incorporate the first rule in quality customer relations; treating your customers with respect!!!CatM58 (talk) 00:24, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We (including you and I) are all users and all volunteers. We have the same roles in Wikipedia. It is just that some of us have been here longer than others and have more experience of the WP rules for biographies. If you have read the policy on conflict of interest, you will know that, if you have any relationship (business, familial, social) with the subject of an article, by definition, you have a conflict. All that means for Wikipedia is that your additions need extra care to ensure that they are neutral and verifiable. If we have "customers", they are the readers for whom this care is taken. I am sorry that you are not interested in helping to provide the required citations and verification. I have certainly gone as far as I can, though others may find more. No one has suggested you are attempting to falsify anything; nonetheless, the article requires evidence. Your word, or mine, or Mr. Murphey's, is not sufficient for many of the claims. (His word would be for some of them. There is a process for confirming that he is providing certain information on his own behalf. If you are interested, please comment here.) Bielle (talk) 00:44, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]