The lengthy statement of beliefs were unnecessary for the page, so I took them off and linked to the Church's website for the statement of beliefs. The page looks much better now.

Regarding edits made to Living Church of God, you destroyed much more than you added, so I reverted. Cheers, JetLover ^(talk) 21:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that you are editing Living Church of God and related articles almost exclusively. Please read Wikipedia's guidelines on Reliable Sources and Conflict of Interest. These articles should not rely primarily on LCOG websites for their sources, and if you have or have had any affiliation with the church then you probably have a Conflict of Interest. It would look good if you were to revert your edits and bring them to the talk page so that other editors can comment on them first. Pairadox 07:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've reviewed Wikipedia's guidelines on COI, and I don't believe I have a COI with the article. Yes, I am a member in good standing with the LCG, but I hold no office with nor am I employed by the church. I am not promoting the LCG or campaigning any issues it has...only stating facts that are accessible by anyone with internet access. The links to the articles, references, etc. are freely accessed by anyone to the public.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Webrown70 (talk • contribs)

One need not be employed or hold office to have a COI. In your massive rewrite you have relied on self-published sources for most of the facts, which, coupled with your affiliation, presents at the very least the appearance of a COI, even if you don't feel there is one. (It also violates several points of the policy on Verifiability.) Again I ask that you bring up any sweeping changes on the article's talk page before implementing them.

On a side note, please sign your talk page posts by ending them with four ~, which automatically converts to your username and a datestamp. Pairadox 17:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Webrown, it's good that you're providing the cites for the statements made here, and you did a nice job trimming out the overly-detailed statement of beliefs. I see that you're addressing the SPS objection, including links to the Charlotte Business Journal and CESNUR. Just, please, don't make so many little edits: combine them, please.--SarekOfVulcan 21:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you SarekOfVulcan for your comments. I'll try my best to not make so many little edits, and combine them next time. How do I link the cites in the reference section of the article? Webrown70 23:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You asked the same question on my talk page, where I've left you an answer, and I've also provided a couple of examples in the article itself. I'm still not entirely comfortable using LCG sources for such things as Neilsen ratings, but it does appear that you are striving for a neutral and well-sourced article. Pairadox 01:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Webrown, I just moved your deleted citation into the correct place in the article. The Citation template is fine, but I find Cite news/Cite web/Cite book generally easier to use.--SarekOfVulcan 18:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]