Willj1

Welcome...

Hello, Willj1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Lynbarn (talk) 21:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 21:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Detling

Hi,

Please check in the manual of style, (see in the welcome section above) look at other examples and explain your reasoning before reverting my edit in this article again, as your assertion that (paraphrasing) "Detling is a short name for the conference" that your link refers to doesn't sound right in encyclopedic terms. Use of a disambiguation page (qv) may be an alternative way of dealing with this tidily.

Hope that helps,

Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 13:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Lynbarn Don't mean to be rude but your constant editing of the page is perhaps seen as helpful but is bordering on vandalism. Unless you are sure of your edits and know facts contrary to those already written please refrain from editing. Thanks willj1

Hi Willj1, Thanks for your comments, but please be assured my intention with the Detling Summer Conference and Detling articles is not to vandalise them, but to improve them, and wikipedia in general. Although I know the village of Detling well, the conference is not a subject I know a great deal about (although I did see the Rev. Eric Delve being interviwed on TV tonight!), but it is not what is known about an article that is important to wikipedia, but what can be independently verified and cited.

I have been contributing to Wikipedia for several years now, and have added to numerous articles on a wide range of subjects, and have come to be able to identify certain aspects of articles that can benefit from bringing up to the standards of style, content, and neutrality etc. that is expected of wikipedia. I'm the first to admit that I don't always get it right, but I can at least say I tried for the right reasons.

When I started editig Wikipedia, I was assisted by other, more experinced wikipedians, and it was in that spirit that I added the welcome message and links to your talk page, and have tried to introduce changes to the two articles you have been working on. From the history of your contributions to Wikipedia, and just the three pages you have contributed to so far, I have assumed inexperience rather than any intention to vandalise MY edits, which were chiefly intended to remove various opinion-based comments - rather than encyclopediac information, and make the articles read more like encyclopedia entries, and less like blog comments or advertising material, for example. (see WP:NOT). Perhaps between us, and with the help of others, this can become a good example of wikipedia collaboration. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 23:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Lyn Thanks for the feedback, although please be assured that I have very good knowledge. I have worked to remove what may be seen as partiality as requested, but on matters of fact you can rest assured. I'm not sure about the word expert though, I find that word unhelpful. Will

Willj1, Whilst I don't doubt that you are expert, you are most probably not THE expert on this matter, but even if you are, there are others more expert than both of us on Christianity in general, and in producing good Wikipedia articles, and it was for that reason that I added the subject-expert template to the article. I doubt that you and I will ever entirely agree on the content of this article, and I still feel that others should be given the opportunity and encouragement to contribute to its development, so I will reinstate the call template - please leave it in place for a while, to see what others can bring forward (possibly even some photographs of the event?). Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 09:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Lyn I feel it invalidates the article and brings it into question, therefore I think it is better to let natural selection take place, otherwise what would stop me posting the same call on your articles? Perhaps humility works against me in not declaring my 'expertise' to write this article with authority. Thanks for entering into discussion on the matter. Will

I'm sorry, Willj1, but I have to disagree, and in view of the fact that you have now twice removed a legitimate wikipedia tag from the article that was merely asking for further input from others, I will put the article forward for arbitration by more senior editors, as is the way with Wikipedia. regards, Lynbarn (talk) 12:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Third opinion

Hi Willj1, I have entered the conference article we have been discussing on the Wikipedia:Third opinion page, as I feel that will be the best way to get this article moving forward. I will also replace the tag - Please leave the tag in place in the article - this is a normal part of the wikipedia process, and will be looked at in a positive light by other editors and administrators. Many thanks, Lynbarn (talk) 13:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)