User talk:Veronicapoe
Fellowship History
[edit]Hi Veronica, thanks for your contributions, but the section on history you have added is problematic. The thing is that Wikipedia does not allow original research to be published in it. (Read more about it in Wikipedia guidelines.) You can only draw your material from sources that have already been published. So privately circulated letters would count as original research. As would statements such as "the circumstances leading to the creation of the organization started when an older, married woman rendered suggestible by a psychedelic drug met a younger, single man under the disinhibiting effect of alcohol, who claimed to have special spiritual understanding" - such a statement is speculative. If someone else had made this statement and published it as their opinion, you may quote it in Wikipedia, but you are not allowed to draw that conclusion yourself. I have removed this statement.
Also consider changing the word "Indoctrination" in the title because it is a loaded word; and moving the entire section "Recruitment techniques" down to the now empty section "Prospective student meetings". You might want to replace the section "Prospective Student Meetings" with your section "Recruiting Techniques". Thanks Wine-in-ark 17:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, Veronicapoe, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your edits have not conformed to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV), and have been reverted. 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 {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
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! Mak (talk) 17:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Recommended Reading
[edit]Hi Veronica, About the citation from "Collective of Women" that deals with control and submission in a closed group - it is perfectly fine to quote from this publication in a relevant way. But come on, you can't include a link to it in External Links as "recommended reading". If it does not discuss the Fellowship specifically, it needs to be deleted from External Links (you can include it in the References section if you are quoting from it. If the article does discuss FOF, please change the heading into something more reasonable - you can't write "recommended reading" because that's being didactic and expressing your personal opinion in an encyclopedia. Wine-in-ark 20:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC) (talk)
Citing sources
[edit]Hi Veronica, could you please edit your contributions by citing your references as footnotes or external links, rather than in-text? Please read here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Footnotes
PS: Please monitor the discussion page for the Fellowship of Friends also.
Wine-in-ark 04:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Edit war at Fellowship of Friends
[edit]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Fellowship of Friends. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Thank you. Leebo T/C 15:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for your reply. I do not claim to take a side in the edit war. I gave him a warning too, as he was trying to revert your content dispute as pure vandalism (as were you). Just know that edits that relate to content are not "vandalism" as Wikipedia defines it and they cannot be endlessly reverted. If you revert it within this 24 hour period, you will be in violation of 3RR and can be blocked. The same applies to him. Take this opportunity to discuss it on the article's talk page instead. Leebo T/C 17:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Picture
[edit]Could you please expand on the source of the picture as it is quite good. Aeuio 02:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
License tagging for Image:MYSTERY.JPG
[edit]Thanks for uploading Image:MYSTERY.JPG. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 03:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)