User talk:Camillegweston144

Help, please

There have been recent edits to the Trinity page that lack substantiation and are questionable. The user that made these edits has no account and no way to access their talk page. There is no way, that I can perceive, to contact this user to discuss these changes before making a reversion. Advice, please? Camille G. Weston (talk) 20:04, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, IP editors have user talk pages, too (though for this specific IP none has been created yet). Secondly, the best place to discuss changes to a specific article is the article talk page; a discussion there will be seen by other editors interested in the page, too, not just the one on whose user talk page you leave a message. Huon (talk) 20:46, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! I appreciate your help. :) Camille G. Weston (talk) 21:40, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Theology Edits

Genesis 1:1–3

Psalm 33:6

Isaiah 9:6

John 1:1–3

1 John 5:7

Revelation 1:8

Help Requests

My userpage (User:camillegweston144) was initially being indexed in the search engines. However, I have recently noticed that robots have been disallowed. My userpage can no longer be found when searching in the search engines. Please advise? Thanks! :)

Camille G. Weston (talk)

It looks like the entire Wikipedia User space is Noindexed, meaning that it does not show up on search engines. This is a software-side setting; I do not believe there is a way to make your userpage show up. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 19:20, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Howicus This userpage was initially indexed and showing in the search engines. It was the sudden change that prompted the question. Thank you so much for responding, though. Camille G. Weston (talk) 19:36, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Hm, I'm afraid I can't speak to that. You could try the technical section of the village pump here. A lot of the more technically-minded editors watch that page. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 19:41, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Ok, thanks again for responding Camille G. Weston (talk) 19:55, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, Camillegweston144, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as User:Camillegweston144, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• Your first article
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• Biographies of living persons
• How to write a great article
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Help pages
• Tutorial

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:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 17:32, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Camillegweston144

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on User:Camillegweston144, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 17:32, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page is not unambiguously promotional, because... (your reason here) --Camillegweston144 (talk) 17:40, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Please advise, I am a new contributing web editor here. What should a user page depict?

Please see WP:user pageDlohcierekim (talk) 19:24, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi Camillegweston144! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

-- 19:35, Thursday, June 15, 2017 (UTC)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

A summary of some important site policies and guidelines

• "Truth" is not the only criteria for inclusion, verifiability is also required.
• We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology.
• Primary sources are usually avoided to prevent original research. Secondary or tertiary sources are preferred for this reason as well.
• Reliable sources typically include: articles from mainstream magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
• Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. Real scholarship actually does not say what understanding of the world is "true," but only with what there is evidence for. In the case of science, this evidence must ultimately start with physical evidence. In the case of religion, this means only reporting what has been written and not taking any stance on doctrine.

As such, we do not use the Bible as a source except when another source quotes it (to verify the quote). The same goes for any other primary source. You may want to read this essay on how Wikipedia's policies complement Christianity. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:02, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

While I appreciate the time that you have taken to explain these concepts, they do not exemplify what actually occurs on Wikipedia. Every article including concepts of Christian theology on Wikipedia cite the Bible as a source to substantiate. I have not seen an exception as of yet. I believe that this occurs because Christian theologians consider the Bible to be a peer reviewed, qualified source of credible testimony. Camille G. Weston (talk)

I've been here for ten years, I have a pretty good handle on what goes on and what is supposed to go on here. Double check the articles that you see citing the Bible, and you'll find that most of them have a citation to a secondary or tertiary source. Just because mistakes creep into articles does not make those mistakes the rule.

You don't seem to understand what peer-reviewed means. Peer-reviewed means modern academic institutions have examined an academic work's arguments and found that it is at least worthy to present. Peer-review is not a process that applies to artistic, poetic, symbolic, or mystical works. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:43, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

However, the Bible is still used as a source in every Wikipedia article inclusive of concepts on Christian theology, correct? Camille G. Weston (talk) 15:45, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Not in the sense you're thinking. It might be used to verify quotes but not to make any claims based on an editor's own understanding. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:47, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I will, in less than 10 minutes, provide you with at least 3 instances to the contrary.

• God, the category of "Gender" Deuteronomy 32:11–12 (a mother eagle);
• Abrahamic religions the category of "Significance of Abraham" is a role model of faith, Heb. 11:8–10;
• Christianity the category of "Death and Resurrection" Christians consider the resurrection of Jesus to be the cornerstone of their faith (see 1 Corinthians 15).

The first two instances of evidence are articles in which you have reverted my edits, today, for using the Bible precisely the same way. Shall we carry on respectfully, and without bias? Camille G. Weston (talk) 16:01, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Three wrongs don't make a right. Also, in the case of the God article, the Elaine Pagels article cited is what points out Deut. 32:11. In the case of Abrahamic religions, the Hebrews citation is immediately followed with a template note saying "non-primary source needed" (demonstrating that many other users do not regard that as fully acceptable). In the case of Christianity, that sentence ends with a citation of a secondary source. Even if the examples you provided were primary source based original research, that would only show that those articles need to be rewritten, not that that use of primary sources is accepted.

Those blue words in my posts? They're not just for decoration, they are links to site policies that reflect the consensus of the community better than misconstrued and cherry-picked bad examples.

Have you considered that maybe you don't understand how this site works and that you should at least consider what more experienced users are pointing out for you? Ian.thomson (talk) 18:55, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your time. I am restating what I posted on Talk:God. I do not believe that all the editors citing the Bible as a reliable source on Wikipedia are in any way violating policy. I believe that the recent aversions to Biblical citations and subsequent reversions of editorial content are subjective and discriminatory. I do believe that it is time for a decision on this to be clearly articulated by an administrator, so that the work of theological research can continue on Wikipedia. Thank you for understanding. Camille G. Weston (talk) 19:00, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

August 2017

Please do not change and or censor content at Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars. Such edits are disruptive, and may appear to other editors to be vandalism. In the UK it is correct to say U2 "are" an Irish band Theroadislong (talk) 16:32, 29 August 2017 (UTC)