ULC4me

Major additions with citations. Addition of academic bibliography and limited popular culture bibliography. Publc criticism with rebuttals added.

April 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that the username you have chosen (ULC4me) seems to imply that you are editing on behalf of a group, company or website.

Dear friendly Wikipedia editors:

I am not editing on behalf of a group, company, or website. I do not have any commerical interests in the ULC, in any ULC affiliates, or any splinter group. I have not been assign by anyone to edit or monitor this or any other entry. I am an individual and kindly note that I have included serious criticism of the ULC made by others in the entry. I tried to include rebuttals whenever possible as well.

I chose that name with little thought because I wanted to first work on this particular entry as an experiment as to how much information can be added and improved without people either deleting for unjust reasons or falsifying. I noticed that "thecatholicguy" is allowed to use that log in. Would he be banned from editing entries on the Vatican, Catholic saints, or the pope? I would hope not. Anyway if that's a big issue I can change the long in ID to something else.

There have been recent major deletions from particular users rather than improvements or clarification, etc. It can be difficult to find online data on the ULC, but I made signficant additions based on a few hours of research. It doesn't mean it's a "perfect" entry, but it's an honest attempt to expand the entry.

Some ULC websites do sell publications, but they also contain significant non-commercial content. These websites are integral to explaining ULC organization and theology.

There needs to be separate entries for splinter groups, although there is less published online about them. There seems to be significant theological differences between them at this point, which is very interesting.

Entries for founder and second president could also be expanded/improved if more biographical information can be found.

The church seems to record ministers rather than members.

Ordination section does need some clarification and citations.

Section on legal status is also in need of improvement as it seems to discuss marriage laws in various countries in general, rather than focusing clearly on ULC ministers being allowed or not allowed to conduct legal marriages.

ULC Seminary is in existence.

Cheers.

May 2012

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Universal Life Church. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. If you revert the article again I will block you. Multiple editors disagree with you and as yet you have made no attempt to discuss your concerns. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 13:51, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I am curious as to why the bibliography is deleted, but never used to make improvements. CBS article(s) and video are highly critical and I've included them, but they could be mined further for more information. Cheers.

ULC4me (talk) 05:31, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't need a list of everything that has ever mentioned the ULC. It needs a factual article about the ULC, citing the best available sources that confirm the information that is actually in the article. Right now, you seem to be the only person who is interested in this article, but you don't appear to understand the difference between neutral wording and advertising, and you seem to be planning to keep reverting to an older, promotional version until your inevitable block, so it doesn't look like much will happen right now. Eventually, someone will come upon this article who is interested in the ULC but doesn't have any particular point of view to push, or who can put aside his or her point of view to edit neutrally, and then the article will get better. Don't worry; Wikipedia doesn't have a deadline. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:08, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you only care about what's good for the ULC, or are you actually interested in helping to write a good encyclopedia? If the latter, I suggest that you move away from this article for now and get involved with improving articles that you don't care passionately about, while you learn the skills you'll need to improve this difficult article. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:09, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Further, you've already acknowledged (via this deletion of the message) that Talk:Universal Life Church is the place to bring up these concerns, yet you haven't engaged in any discussion there about it. —C.Fred (talk) 11:11, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

You have been reported for edit warring

You have been reported for editing warring at Universal Life Church; see here for details or to respond. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:34, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. —C.Fred (talk) 02:00, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

My Experiment

I am actually an academically trained historian and a full time teacher. My involvement in this article was an experiment, which is disclosed in my "talk" page, because my students have repeatedly asked to use Wikipedia and similar products in research papers. My experiment was to make trivial improvements to an article, but then introduce a bibliography of peer reviewed journal articles. The articles ranged in quality, and were not generally accessible on the open Internet. They were available both in print and electronic form, but this would involve a trip to a public or academic library, or a paid subscription to a journal provider like JSTOR. I noticed in my interaction on Wikipedia, none of the passionate editors made any effort to consult the peer reviewed journals. Rather there was a focus on the trivial edits and constant claims of "advertisement" or similar such interpretation. The real work of research and writing was not addressed. I further noticed that while material that should be edited or deleted was, usually whole section entries (which did vary considerably in quality) would be deleted.

I wish everyone well in their future edits. I have not decided if I will continue any attempts to improve this particular article or not. My students, however, will most certainly be banned from using Wikipedia in their research assignments.

Cheers,

I'm sorry, that's a load of crap. No Ethics Board would have allowed such an "experiment", and none was registered with the Wikimedia Foundation. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 08:57, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Nope, your motivation was very clearly to promote the Universal Life Church. I've seen school projects, and helped with a few, and they look like positive and useful contributions, not like pov-pushing and refusal to discuss one's work. Academics have better things to do than troll Wikipedia. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:20, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

And no one over the age of 12 should be using any encyclopedia as a source for research writing. I think most academically trained historians know that. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:24, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Even were you not to be lying about this, what would you have proven? Than an encyclopedia is not primarily a bibliography? That's news to you? That you can come into a project with an intent to be disruptive, be disruptive, be detected as being disruptive, and be treated as being disruptive? That you either didn't take or failed to pay attention in classes about logic and ethics? That you haven't bothered to understand Wikipedia to the degree your students likely do? --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, what feedback, indeed: I have to say I am not unaccustomed to debate and dialogue over academic subjects and department policies, but usually with more decorum. I hasten to say, my intent was not to cause anyone embarrassment.

It was certainly difficult to find internet sources for this entry, and yes, they did tend to be positive. The CBS material was the only one that was clearly negative. No one mined or reframed this material, but chose to delete it along with the rest.

The way to have a more accurate article would be to actually do research. Incidentally, there are, by the way, some very good researchers who are complete amateurs, particularly among the geneology hobbists. One should not feel that academic libraries are off limits. I certainly hope your local university, community college, or adult sixth form college would allow everyone access to their collections and databases. Usually there's a "friends of..." scheme that allows the general public access for a small donation.

Several of my students tried to convince me to be open to this sort of material, although there is a specific notation about avoiding Wikipedia in the Chicago Manual of Style. So rather than being the proverbial "stick in the mud" I thought I would do a test. (There have also been some suggestion to have students do article updates that were recently published in The History Teacher journal. I rather think I won't be assigning that next semester.)

You are certainly correct FisherQueen that, in general, encyclopedias, and other popular non-scholarly publications, should be avoided for secondary and post-secondary students. However, there are certain projects and class presentations where more general sources would not be out of order. Sometimes students who have not mastered English or who have learning challenges need modified rubrics, as well.

I have also noted seeing Wikipedia in some popular publications by academics recently, such as Dambisa Moyo's Dead Aid.

The fact remains that peer reviewed material was simply ignored. I hope that rather than being disagreeable, you all will consider ways in which you can incorporate peer-reviewed journals and other academic publications in the future. I was willing to be open to new ideas, but this experience has made me stick to my original inclinations.

Good day.

You are right- the way to have a more accurate article would be to actually do research, and no one is limited by their academic credentials at Wikipedia. You haven't done that yet, and nothing in this long message indicates that you have any plan to do that. But if you want to start adding factual information to the article, citing the best available sources that verify it, you're certainly welcome to - you might recall that's just what I've been urging you to do all along. All you've done so far is wholesale reversions to a blatantly promotional version of an article. As for your attempt to use 'credentials' in place of good editing, there isn't much point, and the credentials you're trying to boast about seem to be nothing more than a BA in history and some teaching experience, likely for one of the Universal Life Church's e-mail 'degree' programs, which, let's all be frank together, is hardly a real school. My email is activated, and I invite you to prove your claim by sending me your real name and the name of the school at which you teach. You should probably know that if it turns out you are a real teacher, I intend to check the timestamps on your contributions, though, and if they are during school hours in your time zone, report to your administrator (a) that you have been using school time and resources to troll Wikipedia to push your religious beliefs, and (b) that you don't appear to know even as much as a high school student should know about good research writing. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:18, 28 May 2012 (UTC)