User talk:ChildrenOfLight

Welcome!

Hello, ChildrenOfLight, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Ian McCormack, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted.

You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard. Thank you.

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 New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• Your first article
• 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:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Technopat (talk) 00:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Ian McCormack

The article Ian McCormack has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not encyclopaedic

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Technopat (talk) 00:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Ian McCormack

I have nominated Ian McCormack, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ian McCormack. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Technopat (talk) 06:37, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Greetings

Greetings ChildrenOfLight - thank you for the note you left on my talk page. I will try to address the points you raise below:
i. the removal of banners: each banner comes with specific instructions on whether it can be removed;
ii. the "continual vagueness of the discussion"; precisely the reason for the AfD. This process opens the debate to the Wikipedia community and generates debate among both experienced and inexperienced editors on the pros and cons of keeping or deleting an article. It is not a vote, but rather a forum to reach consensus;
iii. "specific issue with a citation or statement": please list it in a way that can be addressed. iv. "how can we have pages on Yuuzhan Vong/Fred Figglehorn?": I don't know. The latter has survived three AfDs, which means the Wikipedia community is satisfied that it is notable. That said, the community does change its collective mind occasionally and deletes articles it no longer considers notable. On the other hand, the fact that an article has been deleted doesn't mean that it can't be created again, obviously with the corresponding modifications made to ensure it stands a better chance of "surviving".
v. "I was disappointed to see a deletion banner appear.": Please don't take it personally. I should think that just about every single editor here has had an article deleted. No problem. See above.
vi. "Thanks again for the constructive comments (I appreciate them!)." Thank you for being so civil about it. I understand that the way things are done around here can seem intimidating for "newbies". People react in different ways to their articles being deleted or modified or whatever, and your reaction to this has been civil and constructive from the start, and is greatly appreciated. It bodes well for future collaborations here. Happy editing! Cheers!
--Technopat (talk) 16:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Technopat, thanks for the answer. It addressed all my questions. There has been little headway on the discussion, however, because the first person to post a motion for deletion left me with very vague reviews again (I have requested for specifics). If there are issues that can be addressed, I want to address them, thanks

ChildrenOfLight (talk) 03:35, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Images ain't my line, but if it's any consolation regarding the "find sources" section, the same happens when I click there. No idea. Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 22:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Given your eagerness to improve the McCormack article, I wish I could be more constructive. As I mentioned above, your enthusiasm and good faith does you credit, and it will stand you in good stead here. That said, as there are already far more “deletes” than would normally be required, there's nothing else I can do but abstain from “voting”. And, at the risk of sounding flippant, and putting my foot in it by giving advice, I would recommend you bow out gracefully and use your considerable energy and writing skills in improving and/or creating other articles of interest to you. As far as I'm concerned, the article just isn't, and can never be, notable enough for Wikipedia (I, too, once had an out-of-body experience, or whatever it's called, and didn't head off to the press about it but kept it as one of those amazing personal revelations many people have once in a lifetime) and the fact that there are other similar - and I dare say worse - articles here doesn't justify its inclusion. Your trial by fire here has been tremendous, and I, for one, am impressed by your attitude and resilience in the face of much adversity. As I mentioned above, you can always re-create it in the future, or wait until that film actually comes out, which would then make the subject, if not the author, more notable. Look forward to collaborating elsewhere soon. Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 01:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Technopat, I will comply with a statement of my intentions on the AFD page and some thoughts on the experience. Should I remove the article or do you do that? I could blank the page but I don't know how to delete it. Thanks for your help and I too hope to see you around :)

ChildrenOfLight (talk) 02:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry about blanking the page or anything. An admin will be along to sort that out shortly. By all means post a statement of intentions and your thoughts there. You've had a crash course in the way things are done here at Wikipedia, so make the most of it and happy editing! --Technopat (talk) 02:13, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button 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 useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 16:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Re:

I marked "I have the page on my watchlist" as an edit summary for removing your posts from my talk page - check the page history. It's redundant to the stuff you posted in the discussion. Hekerui (talk) 23:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

More about the AfD

Dear Mr./Mrs./Miss ChildrenOfLight,

You have done a great job on Wikipedia. Please don't feel discouraged if they decide to delete your first entry. As a Christian editor I sometimes face pressure in here too (check out this discussion). Secular people generally have a picky eye when it comes to religious or supernatural issues. That's understandable. I personally believe Ian McCormack deserves its place in Wikipedia, although I do feel it'll be better if it can be rewritten after the movie is released, with more references available.

I'm looking forward to more of your work here. Happy editing!

Your brother in Christ, --GnuDoyng (talk) 09:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Replied

Greetings from me as well! I echo the comments above about your good conduct.

Please consider joining WikiProject Bible or one of the sub-projects of WP:WikiProject Christianity, as this is one way to work with other editors on articles where there is a consensus about what needs doing.

A lot of articles about Bible events need sources for the interpretations, e.g. Jesus wept, Ananias and Sapphira. In my view it would be more valuable to work on those than to create articles about minor Christian speakers.

If Wikipedia was all-inclusive, then anyone would be able to put their CV here, or other info that would only be of personal interest to a few people. That would make the encyclopedia so cluttered with non-notable info that it would actually become less useful. I used to like Wikipedia's detailed articles on things in Star Trek etc, but have come to realise that specialist Wikis (such as Memory Alpha in that case) are a better place for such info.

When you find other articles that don't appear to be notable, feel free to help Wikipedia slim down by adding {{notability}} at the top of the page. This will be a prompt for others to improve the article, otherwise someone should eventually propose it for deletion.

As for the other person I referred to, after my comments I don't think it would be good for them or for Wikipedia if I named them even on a talk page, see WP:BLP, but if you enable email in your preferences (above), I'll let you know who I was referring to. (I think that article never reached AFD, but was deleted after discussion on the article talk page.) Kind regards, Fayenatic (talk) 16:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey Fayenatic, I understand your points but I retain my position. One reason (to your first point) is my personal agreement with the late reverend Leonard Ravenhill that "what the Church of Jesus Christ needs is a new revelation of the majesty of God!" Ian's story is not an end to this but I believe it is a beginning. The world out there really does believe that it has done away with Christ and it hasn't even started with Him yet! They think He's irrelevant or (at best) a wonderful thinker/visionary like Ghandi, but that's it. Jesus is history to them. I think this applies to a lot of Christians too - how many of us see Christ as Glorified? I know that Christ as glorified wasn't in my foremost thoughts a year ago.

I thought carefully about Ian's page before I put it up. For a while, I was concerned that maybe he wasn't notable enough, but when I did research on his Google, YouTube, page visit #'s, and TV interviews, I started thinking harder about it. When I heard about the Film and started researching that (who' involved, etc), I was convinced, beyond a doubt, that Ian was Wikipedian! I understand now that Morgan Freeman, Jamie Lee Curtis, and Scott Eastwood are interested in the parts (we'll have to wait and see - if it happens, I'm positive McCormack's story will stand in this present Wikipedian climate).

So, if you looked into Ian McCormack, you'd know, that he's quite a bit beyond interest to a "few people" by YouTube tallies alone. According to Church Edit (the software company Ian uses for his website): "Each month over 100,000 page views are recorded from around the world". So it just gets down to different views, I think.

There is so much subjectivity involved in the AFD process. I was on deletion pages earlier where people were calling for a delete of the material because the person wasn't google-able. Well, if that's a standard someone uses,some notable people wouldn't be on here. Other people argue for secular sources which excludes some notable people who have a strong Google-able presence.

So, I agree about the articles you are referring to (they need work), but if you took the time to dig into Ian McCormack's story, he is wikipedian material. It just comes down to different views of what Wikipedia is - I know that you think it should be slimmed down and more "official" and I respect that, but that is NEVER how I've used it nor wish to see it. No one I know uses Wikipedia in the "official" slimmed down manner you envision. I don't understand how it can get "cluttered" but I do understand articles should stand up to scrutiny and we don't want truly ignoble characters showing up here (Like Leonard's Bate Shop down the corner:)). I for one do not want Wikipedia to become a free version of Britannica - that's far too restrictive, so perhaps we'll just have to dissagree :).

I'm not sure what I think of Memory Alpha - I think you're right that super-fanbook info should be here, but I still think summaries should be in Wikipedia.

About the evangelist: If you took the time to delete someone's article because you thought there was strong evidence that they had "exaggerated" then what would be wrong with defending your positon on Wikipedia? I'm not sure I undestand this, unless there wasn't really enough solid information to determine his claims were false - in which case why would you have voted against him. Maybe I'm missing something here (probably gets back to different views of what Wikipedia is). Maybe I should scrutinize WP:BLP more closely :).

Anyways, thanks for your compliments and the words of advice - I appreciate them. Keep in touch

ChildrenOfLight (talk) 20:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello, ChildrenOfLight. You have new messages at GnuDoyng's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Leonard Ravenhill Article

In response to your query on my talk page, I cannot now offer more information other than those already presented. I have the "Why Revival Tarries" book by Leonard Ravenhill, and most of the Ravenhill article text is from the preface of that book, even though "additional citations" are asked for. Indeed, the biographical information is rather scarce. This is one of the marks of a true man of God. If the article must be deleted merely because it is deemed too much "POV" and lacks relevant reference "for verification," let it be deleted.

Mdoc7 (talk) 19:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Likewise in response to your query on my talk page, I have done a little further editing to the Ravenhill article. I have removed the neutrality dispute banner, but left the "needs additional citation" banner. Holford (talk) 02:06, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for submitting an article to Wikipedia. Your submission has been reviewed and has been put on hold pending clarification or improvements from you or other editors. Please take a look and respond if possible. If there is no response within twenty-four hours the request may be declined; if this happens feel free to continue to work on the article. You can resubmit it (by adding the text {{subst:AFC submission/submit}} to the top of the article) when you believe the concerns have been addressed. Thank you. N419BH 13:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

How do I respond? The reviewer didn't leave any way to contact him and I don't see any way to reply. Secondly, we've been through all this before in the discussion history and I cleared up the confusion which this reviewer seems to be under. There are numerous verifiable sources not connected to the the subject: Ian McCormack. This reviewer obviously didn't pay the time or attention to look at them (some of them are in the external links section because there are so many). Please advise how I can address the issue. Thanks. ChildrenOfLight (talk) 14:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I reviewed it myself. I didn't decline it, but the article needs work to be accepted. I also note that a page, Ian McCormack with substantially similar content was already deleted from mainspace.

The "on hold" tag is your prod to make improvements to the article. Keep editing it and improving it. Reviewers will continue to look at it. The main hurdles are the article is not encyclopedic in tone, reading more like and advertisement than an encyclopedia. A bigger hurdle however is sourcing. We need sources from reliable, third parties to establish verifiability and notability. Has this story been covered in a major news organization, like a national paper? if it hasn't, the article is likely to fail the notability criterion and will not be created.

If those issues can be addressed, myself or another editor will be more than happy to accept the submission. Keep improving the article until then. Good luck! N419BH 15:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Please Read all - Could you be specific about the promotional language - a word, a sentence, a tone. I am very eager to work on real issues and not "phantom vagueness." The vagueness of your critique frustrates constructive discussion about how to make the article more suitable to you. In the past AFD discussion, when I have received specific suggestions about how to improve the article, I have.

Secondly, SightMagazine, The 700 Club, The Independent, etc are 3rd party sources to the existence of Ian McCormack. His story is not on trial here. It cannot be proved or disproved in the same way that Smith Wigglesworth says God cured his hemmorroids. What is on trial, is that Ian is not a friend of mine, a neighbor, etc - that he has some real notability. That is established clearly in the links to TV interviews, paper interviews, news blurbs about him giving talks, Google presence, Youtube presence, etc. Like Fred Figglehorn, Ask a Ninja, etc, Ian has a substantial Google and Youtube presence (note, I am not basing my entire claim of notability on this).

Like the previous AFD discussion, I imagine people will frown on drawing comparisons to existing articles, but it is Wikipedian to look at what Wikipedia IS. There are so many that fail the strict "letter of the law" that you are employing. There are so many articles on here about porn stars, fantasy artists, comic book writers, etc who have absolutely no notability in the way you are demanding it (I will deliver specific examples upon request). I believe that all of us who write articles would appreciate review by the "Spirit of the Law" which these particular articles seem to have accomplished.

I can see already that this discussion is probably going to return to pure subjectivity again. People who are not spiritual and wouldn't find the topic of Near Death Experiences at all interesting are going to be the ones who say this article is not notable and hound the subjective issue of what is a proper news source for a Wikipedia article while they ignore the thousands of articles which have been allowed through the "spirit of the law."

I would appreciate some constructive, specific help from you to make it a workable article since you took the time to vote against it.

Thank you for your reply, your additional info on why you voted against it, and for your civility. It is much appreciated. Sincerely ChildrenOfLight (talk) 16:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Try not to get discouraged. The tone of the article is the issue. It doesn't read like an encyclopedia entry, it reads like a spiritual essay or advertisement. Frankly it reminds me of the tone used in evangelical pamphlets. As a matter of fact, it reminded me so much that I googled the text to see if it was copied from somewhere else. For examples of the tone expected in our articles, try reading some. Our featured articles are the best ones on the site and are great examples to follow. There are quite a few on religious topics. Don't expect to write with the level of detail a Featured Article has. Your submission might look something more like George Durrant's article. For more information on the tone expected, read WP:TONE. I'll see if I can find some reliable sources myself. If I do, I'll let you know and help rewrite the article. N419BH 17:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply and help. However, I didn't see anything in WP:TONE that was relevant - I've pasted it below so we can both see it. Please point to what you were refering to:

Wikipedia articles, and other encyclopedic content, should be written in a formal tone. Standards for formal tone vary depending upon the subject matter, but should follow the style used by reliable sources, while remaining clear and understandable. Formal tone means that the article should not be written using unintelligible argot, doublespeak, legalese, or jargon; it means that the English language should be used in a businesslike manner.

Articles should generally not be written from a first or second person perspective. In prose writing, the first person ("I" and "we") point of view and second person ("you" and "your") point of view typically evoke a strong narrator. While this is acceptable in works of fiction, it is generally unsuitable in an encyclopedia, where the writer should be invisible to the reader. Moreover, pertaining specifically to Wikipedia's policies, the first person often inappropriately implies a point of view inconsistent with WP:NPOV, and second person is inappropriately associated with step-by-step instructions of a how-to guide (see WP:NOTHOWTO). First and second person pronouns should ordinarily be used only in attributed direct quotations relevant to the subject of the article. As with many such guidelines, however, there are exceptions: for instance, in professional mathematics writing, use of the first person plural ("we") as a transitional pronoun is widespread. Use common sense to determine if the chosen perspective is in the spirit of this guideline.

Gender-neutral pronouns should be used where the gender is not specific; see Gender-neutral language, Quest for gender-neutral pronouns and the related discussion for further information.

Punctuation marks that appear in the article should be used only per generally accepted practice. Exclamation marks (!) should be used only if they occur in direct quotations.

The George Durant article was interesting (extremely short) but there is a significant difference between him and Ian and that is Ian's story is the backbone of why he his known (what makes him notable to news, talks, video etc), not his service to an organization or membership in a church, or work for the poor, etc. That is why his story takes more of center stage here. I worked really hard to sum up his story from a independent point of view (i.e. I was careful to use words like "he says", "he believes", "According to Ian's story", etc.). Sometimes this approach seems to fail WP:Words to watch though, so its a tough situation lending to leaner judgement. Thanks again ChildrenOfLight (talk) 17:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I did a pretty major rewrite of the article. I cut quite a bit of the specifics as they're hard to verify and are the core of the tone problem. I've also added tags where information needs to be sourced. Have a look at my edit and how it reads. If you can find sources for the areas I've tagged add them. I can help with that if you need it. I've also fixed your external links to make them look better, and added links to other articles. I think the remaining hurdle is notability. If you can find an article about Ian in a mainstream news organization (BBC, AP, Reuters, something along those lines) I'd say it's ready to go to mainspace. If not, it's kind of a borderline case as to whether Ian is notable enough to be included. There are definitely some claims of notability, but it's borderline per WP:NOTABLE. I'll keep working and see what else I can add. N419BH 18:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for everything. I can live with the changes. I added sources where you suggested them. The difficulty with a "spiritual" person is that they can't find press easily in secular areas because secular news isn't interested in them. In order to become "newsworthy" they have a few options: notoriety, making lots of money, and publicity stunts. The outcome is that only the outrageous or corrupt get 3rd party secular coverage. Remember Pat Robertson. Never in the news until he saysgays and homosexuals were responsible for 9/11. He was all over the news after that, but not before. So someone like Ian has an almost impossible task of getting secular coverage because he doesn't make money or profit off his story, he doesn't pull publicity stunts, and he doesn't say outrageous, hateful things. Thanks again ChildrenOfLight (talk) 20:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

You have new messages (last change).

—fetch·comms 18:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey, some more sources!

• http://www.networknorwich.co.uk/Publisher/File.aspx?ID=44500
• http://www.hawkesbaytoday.co.nz/local/news/man-who-died-to-give-talk/3656811/
• http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/the-wrong-side-of-the-pearly-gates-1593085.html
• http://www.gethampshire.co.uk/news/s/36122_what_happened_when_i_died_talk
• http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/features/faithmatters/3953954.I_talked_to_God_after_being_declared_clinically_dead__diver_tells_Bournemouth_audience/
• http://www.westerntelegraph.co.uk/news/4177985.Man_who_came_back_from_the_dead_to_appear_in_Manorbier/

Maybe you can get some new information, or just add more reliable sources. —fetch·comms 22:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I do really appreciate it. If it comes to that, I'll try to use them. Thanks (I do mean it) :) ChildrenOfLight (talk) 22:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)