User talk:Custodiansoftime

Your recent edit to Christian coat of Arms was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept our apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // Tawkerbot2 16:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages. The notices and comments are needed to establish community consensus about the status of an article, and removing them is considered vandalism. If you oppose the deletion of an article, you may comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. FiggyBee 16:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further explanation

Hi Custodians,

I want to explain why your article is not suitable for wikipedia, and apologise for any distress caused; believe me, it's in no way personal or vindictive, and I hope you will stick around and improve articles in the future.

Firstly, content included in wikipedia must be factual, verifiable and notable. A poem you have written is not factual. If the organisation "Custodians of Time" is notable, you have to show how and why (or preferably, if you are involved in that organisation, let someone else do it).

Secondly, there is already a factual article on the historical "coat of arms of God" at Shield of the Trinity.

Thirdly, everything posted on Wikipedia must be released under an open licence; this means anyone can use it, for any non-commercial purpose. If you are claiming copyright to your poem and drawing, then you can't submit them to Wikipedia.

Fourthly, Wikipedia is not the place for original research (WP:OR). Even if you think you can make an argument from scripture, don't. On the other hand, if someone else has made an argument from scripture, and that argument has been published in a notable publication, then you can report that they have made that argument.

Feel free to answer here or on my talk page if you have any questions. FiggyBee 17:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Custodiansoftime, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

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 need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

I also particularly suggest that you read the policy on verifiability the policy on notability and some of its supporting so that you can understand more of why the "Christian Coat of Arms" article has been nominated for deletion. That will give you a better shot at reshaping the article so that it won't merit deletion. GRBerry 17:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Editorial Critique of Christian Coat of Arms

God's legacy is the Christian's HERITAGE. This heritage is passed down through the "family" by way of testimony (personal accounts), the Word of God (Holy Bible), and all the works and services the Christians of today and of the past have contributed. This history is marked by time.

"Christians believe in Christianity; Christianity is based on Christianity". Okay, all good so far.

The coat of arms of the Christian People is described in the Ephesians 6 of the Holy Bible.

No it isn't; that section is about the "armour of God", a metaphor for strength through faith. The concept of a "coat of arms" didn't even exist until the 12th century (see Heraldry).

This depiction of the "Full Armor of God", has become accepted as the Official Christian Coat of Arms or Coat of Arms of God's Family.

Says who? What's "Official" about it? Verifiability...

It is also the Trademark of a Christian Organization called Custodians of Time.

Which is significant why? And how can the "Trademark" of one organisation be the "Coat of Arms" of an entire religion?

It was drawn by a young Christian

If this is an official emblem of one of the largest religions in the world, you'd think you could come up with a better example than a (copyrighted!) crayon sketch.

who also wrote the spirit filled poem now known as the Custodians of Time Covenant:

Who says it's spirit-filled? What relevence does the poem have to anything? How is a poem even remotely encyclopaedic?

The Custodians of Time is now an organization "officially" established in 1988 by agreement

What was it before? Why is "officially" in quotes? Who agreed, and to what?

to spread the knowledge of this "spiritual lineage" and coat of arms to help those "of the family" blend their daily Life with their Personal Ministry/Spiritual Calling.

Which is all very well, but unless you can demonstrate that this organisation is significant (because for all you can tell from the website it could be one man sitting in a back bedroom somewhere, trying to scam money out of gullible people on the internet), it doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia! FiggyBee 18:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]