| Revision as of 16:15, 1 July 2008 editJohnb316 (talk | contribs)104 editsm →Input on Jack Graham (pastor) page← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:42, 3 January 2009 edit undoManutdglory (talk | contribs)3,091 edits →Rick WarrenNext edit → | ||
| (3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 75: | Line 75: | ||
| Lyonscc, | Lyonscc, | ||
| Thank you again for your help today...can you belive this mess? Funny how there was about to be a 3RR violation and then here comes out of the blue comes one of the other 2 editors with the same opinion to make the save. Seeing as how you are much more experienced than me at wiki do you have any suggestions as to some additional steps I/we can take on this page? It doesn't appear that involving other editor consensus is working as i've tried that route several times now and have requested it once again on a wiki portal. ] (]) 16:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC) | Thank you again for your help today...can you belive this mess? Funny how there was about to be a 3RR violation and then here comes out of the blue comes one of the other 2 editors with the same opinion to make the save. Seeing as how you are much more experienced than me at wiki do you have any suggestions as to some additional steps I/we can take on this page? It doesn't appear that involving other editor consensus is working as i've tried that route several times now and have requested it once again on a wiki portal. ] (]) 16:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC) | ||
| == ] == | |||
| Hey Chris, | |||
| I've been a primary editor of the Rick Warren article for several months now, and we hadn't really had many problems, until Obama announced that Rick would be given his invocation - then all hell broke loose. The article was attacked by dozens of pro-gay marriage activists that vandalized the site repeatedly for a couple days, until an administrator finally partially locked it. That seemed to solve the problem until this week, when an editor named ] started vandalizing the site with all kinds of anti-Warren diatribe, just like the unregistered users were doing prior to the article being locked. However, because Teledelonix314 is a registered user, the lock unfortunately doesn't block him, even though he's doing the same thing as the people who got blocked. Not surprisingly (take a closer look at his user name), I found out that he's a gay-rights activist - nice huh? | |||
| My attempts to protect the article from him by simply undoing his edits were somewhat effective and I began to consider having him blocked, until another user named ] began undoing my edits and defending Teledildonix314. He also began criticizing me for referring to Teledildonix314 as a vandal, even though he clearly was. I couldn't understand what Mike's deal was until he made an interesting comment to me on the discussion page - he described Rick as a "thuggish, slimy weasel" then I found out that he's an atheist, while claiming that his personal bias against Warren didn't disqualify him as an objective editor of the Warren article - sure. That's when I realized that I was fighting two anti-Warren editors - one, a radical, the other, extremely biased, yet masquerading as a legitimate editor. | |||
| As Teledildonix314 continued his vandalism, I just kept restoring his illegitimate comments. In the mean time, Mike attempted to instruct his ally, who he claimed was a legitimate editor, that he simply couldn't post unsourced personal diatribe and essays on a Misplaced Pages article. However, humorously, he failed miserably, and Teledildonix314 turned on him too. That's when Mike decided that I was right about Teledildonix314 and reported him. However, he then shockingly reported ''me'' for labeling Teledildonix314 a vandal! I then reported him for illegitimate threats and "name-calling". Anyway, that's where things stand. You can look over the discussion page to see what I'm talking about. | |||
| Now, anytime I try to remove non-NPOV comments from the article, Mike undoes my changes and reports me again - very childish. Even though I didn't do anything wrong and certainly nothing to be blocked over, I'm sick of dealing with it all. So could you just keep an eye on the article for me in order to keep some sort of balance? | |||
| Thanks! | |||
| ] (]) 23:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 03:42, 3 January 2009
Welcome!
|
Input on Jack Graham (pastor) page
Lyonscc,
Would you mind taking a look at the page for Jack Graham (pastor) when you have a second? This page has had quite the edit warring over the last couple of months that resulted in it getting locked for over a month. Tomorrow it becomes unlocked and there may or may more warring over a couple of subjects. I really would prefer to stay out of this warring and let some fresh blood take over with their opinions. I'll let you read the discussion and the history yourself to make your own opinion if you're interested but please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks and sorry if this is not the way you prefer requests.Dirkmavs (talk) 00:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- Dirkmavs, per your request (00:00, 30 June 2008) I have added this to my watchlist, and I will observe changes to this page. Just from a perusal of past changes, it appears that the issue of support (or lack thereof) of 5-point Calvinism and/or hyper-Calvinism (which are commonly conflated) has been coatracked onto his page, and probably given undue weight, particularly since (from the text quoted) he uses the word 'hyper' and seems to be specifically targeting hyper-Calvinism. After some Googling, apart from some Calvinist/hyper-Calvinist blogs decrying his comments, it does not appear that his position on Calvinism is all that notable, and I'm not sure why it's even important to include in an article about him. Otherwise, we might as well go tagging folks as "not a Mormon", "not a female", etc. - what someone is not, particularly when it is not a significant deviation from the majority, is typically not notable.--Lyonscc (talk) 01:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Well as you can see in the various discussions on the page in question we share the same viewpoint on this issue so any help you could give would be appreciated. Take care.Dirkmavs (talk) 03:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Lyonscc,
It appears that DirkMavs, a fellow Arminianist with you, has rallied you to fight with him. I've looked at your discussion page and have taken note, that except for the Arminianist point of view, and a few more things, we share a remarkably similar view point on life including politics and religion. It would SEEM that our view point on things wouldn't be SO different that we could not have a reasonable and congenial discussion. I would like to ask that, instead of you and I entering an edit war, that we approach these issues with discussion and a reasonable effort to be honest in accessing the situations and coming to an agreement. I believe we've gotten off to a bad start already. For instance, it should be clear to most any reader that the June 30th edition of Jack Graham's page on the issue of his criticism towards Calvinism is in no way, conducive towards NPOV. The statement is not encyclopedic in tone (and comes off as a child like response) and the use of bolding in the paragraph is highly inappropriate. I made GREAT strides towards producing a NPOV paragraph and it seems you summarily dismissed this effort. I was really surprised at your decision to just revert the paragraph and not try to improve on my efforts make suggestions for making the paragraph better. I am going to leave your changes for now, and enter into discussion on the discussion page of that article. Please take a look at my points and see if we can come to a consensus.Romans9:11 (talk) 14:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Lyonscc,
As I just said on the discussion on this page, welcome to the fun that is the Jack Graham page! I have just taken the liberty to go ahead and remove the 2 sentences on this page in question as it was really a useless statement in my opinion to begin with as this is hardly a "theological distinctive" of Pastor Graham as evidenced by the survey by BP...not to mention that the quote used is not even talking about mainstream Calvinists of which you'd have a hard time anyone having a real problem with. You are also correct in saying above that the way it was constructed was undue weight and just recently this section was tagged as not being neutral so I thought deletion was the best remedy. Others might not agree so thanks for taking an interest in this page and I hope you continue to keep this page on you radar.Johnb316 (talk) 14:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Lyonscc, Thank you again for your help today...can you belive this mess? Funny how there was about to be a 3RR violation and then here comes out of the blue comes one of the other 2 editors with the same opinion to make the save. Seeing as how you are much more experienced than me at wiki do you have any suggestions as to some additional steps I/we can take on this page? It doesn't appear that involving other editor consensus is working as i've tried that route several times now and have requested it once again on a wiki portal. Johnb316 (talk) 16:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Rick Warren
Hey Chris,
I've been a primary editor of the Rick Warren article for several months now, and we hadn't really had many problems, until Obama announced that Rick would be given his invocation - then all hell broke loose. The article was attacked by dozens of pro-gay marriage activists that vandalized the site repeatedly for a couple days, until an administrator finally partially locked it. That seemed to solve the problem until this week, when an editor named User:Teledildonix314 started vandalizing the site with all kinds of anti-Warren diatribe, just like the unregistered users were doing prior to the article being locked. However, because Teledelonix314 is a registered user, the lock unfortunately doesn't block him, even though he's doing the same thing as the people who got blocked. Not surprisingly (take a closer look at his user name), I found out that he's a gay-rights activist - nice huh?
My attempts to protect the article from him by simply undoing his edits were somewhat effective and I began to consider having him blocked, until another user named User:Mike Doughney began undoing my edits and defending Teledildonix314. He also began criticizing me for referring to Teledildonix314 as a vandal, even though he clearly was. I couldn't understand what Mike's deal was until he made an interesting comment to me on the discussion page - he described Rick as a "thuggish, slimy weasel" then I found out that he's an atheist, while claiming that his personal bias against Warren didn't disqualify him as an objective editor of the Warren article - sure. That's when I realized that I was fighting two anti-Warren editors - one, a radical, the other, extremely biased, yet masquerading as a legitimate editor.
As Teledildonix314 continued his vandalism, I just kept restoring his illegitimate comments. In the mean time, Mike attempted to instruct his ally, who he claimed was a legitimate editor, that he simply couldn't post unsourced personal diatribe and essays on a Misplaced Pages article. However, humorously, he failed miserably, and Teledildonix314 turned on him too. That's when Mike decided that I was right about Teledildonix314 and reported him. However, he then shockingly reported me for labeling Teledildonix314 a vandal! I then reported him for illegitimate threats and "name-calling". Anyway, that's where things stand. You can look over the discussion page to see what I'm talking about.
Now, anytime I try to remove non-NPOV comments from the article, Mike undoes my changes and reports me again - very childish. Even though I didn't do anything wrong and certainly nothing to be blocked over, I'm sick of dealing with it all. So could you just keep an eye on the article for me in order to keep some sort of balance?
Thanks!