| Revision as of 23:07, 31 May 2006 editB (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators63,958 editsm →Mass deletion: spacing← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:33, 31 May 2006 edit undoGuillen (talk | contribs)96 editsm you are Southern Baptists'?Next edit → | ||
| Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
| **I think everything is back now ... we need to have a partial revert feature or something ... ] 23:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC) | **I think everything is back now ... we need to have a partial revert feature or something ... ] 23:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ***Ya know, there's probably some irony somewhere about a discussion about an out of process deletion of comments about an out of process deletion of a review about an out of process deletion of a template. Hmmm ... ;) ] 23:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC) | ***Ya know, there's probably some irony somewhere about a discussion about an out of process deletion of comments about an out of process deletion of a review about an out of process deletion of a template. Hmmm ... ;) ] 23:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC) | ||
| == you are Southern Baptists'? == | |||
| No! nobody in a southern baptist church post garbage as "free distribution of bibles by protestants led to PROFANE uses from Bible". | |||
| And you call it a neutral point of view?. | |||
| What book from southern baptist theology you has ever reads?. | |||
| I`m a baptist. | |||
| your catholic proselytism using wikipedia will be reported to jimbo wales. | |||
| I will writes entire articles on catholic massacres from evangelicals,orthodoxs and jews. | |||
| If you delete it,I will writes it again and again. | |||
Revision as of 23:33, 31 May 2006
Previous Archives
Archives: archive1 archive2 archive2b
Stuff
Main page * My Contributions * Talk to me
welcome back!
A great way to return back from Wikibreak: both you and User:CharonX have returned! I like your "Tinyville" analogy, and I'm glad you've decided to stay out of the Wars. See you around! Λυδαcιτγ 03:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Hello Big DT
Misplaced Pages had two problems: Catholics want to use it as propaganda tool. And Evangelicals are harassed in every article on religion. Your editions from my articles are unfair and errors,except in the reference to geocities. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Guillen (talk • contribs) .
- Catholics want to use it as a propaganda tool. So do atheists. So do PETA people. So do born again Christians. But the whole thing is that Misplaced Pages ISN'T a propaganda tool. Articles should present the issues in an unbiased fashion. My reverts to your articles were because you replaced content with your opinion. Misplaced Pages is not a place for original research. It may be that your views on spiritual warfare are right - I don't know - to be perfectly honest, I didn't take the time to read the whole thing. But the problem is that you replaced a well-written article that had a ton of sources with an unsourced opinion piece. In another article - Plymouth Brethren, you copied and pasted content from brethrenonline.org. Neither of those actions are acceptable. This has nothing whatsoever to do with theology. If you want to contribute, by all means do so, but articles need to be written from a neutral point of view and need to be sourced. BigDT 23:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
My apologies
Regarding your imput that I inadvertantly deleted at Misplaced Pages:Deletion Review. I honestly have no idea what happened, maybe some edit conflict, but it didn't warn me, just allowed me to submit my edit. Sorry again, Chuck 07:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- You know, I edited like 10 minutes after you, so it couldn't have been an edit conflict. I just have no idea what happened. Chuck 07:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Not a problem ... I have removed the comment from the DRVU discussion page ... BigDT 13:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Mass deletion
I'm sorry, Firefox does not always load the whole section, so I end up submitting something that has alot of it cut off. Please forgive me and I'll be sure to check it more in the future. --mboverload@ 23:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Gotcha ... I wasn't sure if it was accidental or WP:POINT ... the cutoff wasn't at a logical place so I was kinda leaning towards accidental. Thanks for clarification and, as with everything, no harm, no foul BigDT 23:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- I think everything is back now ... we need to have a partial revert feature or something ... BigDT 23:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Ya know, there's probably some irony somewhere about a discussion about an out of process deletion of comments about an out of process deletion of a review about an out of process deletion of a template. Hmmm ... ;) BigDT 23:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- I think everything is back now ... we need to have a partial revert feature or something ... BigDT 23:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
you are Southern Baptists'?
No! nobody in a southern baptist church post garbage as "free distribution of bibles by protestants led to PROFANE uses from Bible". And you call it a neutral point of view?. What book from southern baptist theology you has ever reads?. I`m a baptist. your catholic proselytism using wikipedia will be reported to jimbo wales. I will writes entire articles on catholic massacres from evangelicals,orthodoxs and jews. If you delete it,I will writes it again and again.