User talk:HowDoesThisEvenwork

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome![edit]

Hello, HowDoesThisEvenwork, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Torben Søndergaard. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! McGeddon (talk) 11:39, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Self-published sources[edit]

Had to double-check, but no, per WP:SPS Wikipedia should "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." If Langkjer has had anything published about Søndergaard then we can quote that, but we shouldn't quote a statement about a living person which is only made on her own website. --McGeddon (talk) 13:02, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Torben Søndergaard[edit]

Hi there, just letting you know that I removed your speedy deletion tag on Torben Søndergaard because the article did not qualify for deletion under criterion A7. This criterion can only be used where the article does not credibly assert a basis for notability. If you believe the article fails any of Wikipedia's other notability policies and guidelines, the deletion will need to be discussed here. If you have any questions about this, please don't hesitate to contact me! Kind regards, — Oli OR Pyfan! 14:15, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

September 2016[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Torben Søndergaard has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 14:26, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

  1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
  2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) 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 necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. NeilN talk to me 14:36, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Torben Søndergaard - Classic Hits[edit]

Hi. If that link to Classic Hits FM is a source for a claim, than please point it to the relevant show and episode. You can't expect people to go searching through the broadcasting archive from the station's main page, I think. Kind regards, Yintan  15:11, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Yintan: Probably, but I'm not going to spend time finding it. --HowDoesThisEvenwork (talk) 15:28, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, don't be surprised if the ref is rejected. That's like typing "www.youtube.com" as a ref and then expect people to find the appropriate video. Yintan  18:32, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting Søndergaard's websites[edit]

This is okay to some extent per WP:ABOUTSELF so long as it's not "unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim". It can be useful to pad out gaps which aren't otherwise filled by the secondary sources, although I agree there's probably too much here. The article shouldn't be an advert for the ministry, but it should give an interested reader some idea of what they get up to and what claims they make. --McGeddon (talk) 15:15, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@McGeddon: However, 1) there is reasonable doubt as to its authenticity as the guy in the same sources claims to hear from God and stuff, 2) the article is based primarily on such source. Therefore, they should be removed. I will undo your undoing of me undoing some other persons edit. You can undo it if you disagree, however, I can't see why you would. --HowDoesThisEvenwork (talk) 15:23, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You should wait a moment and read WP:3RR before reverting a revert of a revert of a revert... --McGeddon (talk) 15:24, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@McGeddon: Holy smoking giraffe, Wiki has way too many rules. However, do you disagree with the fact that 85% of the article is made up of stuff written by Torben Søndergaard, and it's not reliable material, thus should be removed?
No worries, you're not meant to learn all of the rules straight off, and often they just answer common sense points (like you wondering about whether I'd revert a revert of a revert of a revert of an etc - I wouldn't, because WP:3RR).
I agree there's a lot of WP:PRIMARY in there, I disagree that hacking every last sentence out to end up with "Torben Søndergaard claims to cure homosexuality" makes for a better article, to an interested reader coming here to find out who this guy is. It should be cut down to a basic overview of what Søndergaard thinks The Last Reformation is, and presented as such. By all means cut out anything that seems self-serving, but what we had (speaks to God, targets ill people in the street) seemed like a decent skeleton to start hanging better sources onto.
Note that your revert has also wiped out some secondary-sourced stuff I added about claiming to curing cancer and baptising people in bins. (I think the bins article had a bit about their practice of dragging people in off the street, also, so could have been attached as a source elsewhere.) --McGeddon (talk) 15:36, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@McGeddon: The guy in one breath claims to be in Hell, the next to hear God's audible voice and the next that he has a movement. The article itself is so problematic that it should not even exist. Especially considering the fact that it's not even a notably subject at all. Made this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Torben_Søndergaard --HowDoesThisEvenwork (talk) 15:41, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Odd claims don't mean we should throw primary quotes out, though - we've got a whole drawer full of List of messiah claimants. We obviously shouldn't say "Søndergaard can hear God audibly" as fact in Wikipedia's voice, but it may be useful to say "Søndergaard claims to be able to hear God audibly" if that helps fill out the article and tell the interested reader the kind of guy that he is. --McGeddon (talk) 15:51, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@McGeddon: I agree with this and we should write this, however, basing for example biographical stuff on simply his statements is not reliable. And maybe insert that he is teaching something similar to Oneness Pentecostal doctrine but why is there a long presentation of his teaching? People can just find this stuff on his website or YouTube. When this is done, do you disagree with the article having no real significance? And that there's really no worldwide thing going on? --HowDoesThisEvenwork (talk) 15:57, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Taking bread-and-butter biographical stuff from WP:ABOUTSELF sources (and press interviews, which are considered primary sources) is fine and not unusual in biographies. What we've got should be cut down and sourced more strongly, but shouldn't be blanked.
I've not yet decided about the overall notability of the page, I'll join in on the AfD at some point. --McGeddon (talk) 16:05, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

September 2016[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm RunnyAmiga. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Torben Søndergaard without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 16:02, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Torben Søndergaard shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 16:05, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@RunnyAmiga: Thanks. Another user made me aware of the same. Had no idea. Made this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Torben_Søndergaard
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HowDoesThisEvenwork&oldid=741629935"