No edit summary |
BelloWello (talk | contribs) →1RR: new section |
||
Line 340: | Line 340: | ||
:::Any of you 2 willing to use your 1 RR and undo all of Bello's biased additions and changes? He basically did like 3 in one. Why don't those admins who are so willing to report violations do something about him or at least revert his edits back to the original? Fountainviewkid 00:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC) |
:::Any of you 2 willing to use your 1 RR and undo all of Bello's biased additions and changes? He basically did like 3 in one. Why don't those admins who are so willing to report violations do something about him or at least revert his edits back to the original? Fountainviewkid 00:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC) |
||
::::Here's where I learned about wmo=bw: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jclemens#WikiManOne]. Maybe I didn't read carefully enough the CLEANSTART parts. [[User:Kenatipo|<span style="color:#933;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;cursor:help">'''<big>Kenatipo</big>'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Kenatipo|speak!]]</sup> 03:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC) |
::::Here's where I learned about wmo=bw: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jclemens#WikiManOne]. Maybe I didn't read carefully enough the CLEANSTART parts. [[User:Kenatipo|<span style="color:#933;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;cursor:help">'''<big>Kenatipo</big>'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Kenatipo|speak!]]</sup> 03:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC) |
||
== 1RR == |
|||
Please self revert your revert made [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Southern_Adventist_University&action=historysubmit&diff=431199000&oldid=431198104 here] since that is your [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Southern_Adventist_University&action=historysubmit&diff=431196700&oldid=431196263 second] revert today per the 1RR sanctions imposed by the community. ''<font color="blue">[[User:BelloWello|b]]''</font><font color="navy">'''[[User talk:BelloWello|W]]'''</font> 16:22, 27 May 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:22, 27 May 2011
Sockpuppetry case
![]() |
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ajdkj for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:26, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
IMO
You crossed the line the other day on your talk page. I think you were unfair, particularly since the other editor was also blocked. It would be a wonderful gesture if you were to apologize to those you maligned, IMHO. Lionel (talk)
- I'm sorry I am not aware of what you referring to. Are you talking about BelloWello? If so I was under the impression that he was not blocked, though your explanation would be helpful. It seems I may have made an accidental error. Please explain further, I honestly am not understanding what this is about. Fountainviewkid 2:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Your edits to Andrews University
Extended content
|
---|
Hello there. I have reverted your edits to Andrews University. I encourage you to read Wikipedia's policy on verifiability, specifically the section on using websites as sources of information about the entities they are published by. Your addition to the article violates criterion #1 of that section as unduly self-serving material. Thank you. --TorriTorri(talk/contribs) 22:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC) Hi. Hopefully there are enough links at Andrews University not to cause any debate now. Fountainviewkid (talk) 01:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC) |
Collapsing threads
Extended content
|
---|
Out of curiosity, why do you have nested collapsing threads on your talk page? --TorriTorri(talk/contribs) 02:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC) Honestly, because I saw it on a page and decided I liked the idea. I accidentally did it to all of them, and didn't feel like redoing it. What's ur recent interest in my User talk:Fountainviewkid page, if I may ask? Fountainviewkid (talk) 02:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC) |
April 2011
Extended content
|
---|
There are two issues with this:
Regardless of whether you change your name or create a new account, you are not exempted from the guidelines concerning editing where you have a conflict of interest. For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. The article in question is [[Fountain View Academy]]. Thank you. BelloWello (talk) 23:05, 23 April 2011 (UTC) I am sorry but I have had this username for a very long time. You are right in that it is based on [[Fountain View Academy]], where I was a student several years ago. I use this username many places and have not had a problem with it. I believe however that you are exaggerating this issue. For example, if a person were to be a fan of a sports team and put "Bearsfan1" would you attack them as working on behalf of the Bears organization (be in University of California or Chicago NFL team)? The fact that my username just happens to be similar to an organization need not imply that I work on behalf of that organization. If you would notice I do not regularly edit pages relating to that organization, as I have no official ties other than having graduated high school there. If there were a true conflict of interest I would probably change my account, however none currently exists. Thank-you for the suggestions. Fountainviewkid (talk) 00:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC) 1:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC) ![]() In particular, the three-revert rule states that:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. BelloWello (talk) 19:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC) ![]() You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. |
I tried to warn you...
Extended content
|
---|
see here. BelloWello (talk) 21:59, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
|
Geraty
Extended content
|
---|
I realize we don't seem to agree a lot... why not collaborate on this article? I think this is an opportunity for both of us to add verified statements to a truly, clearly, great Adventist mind and leader on here. I have created a sandbox to work on it here, WP:SDA/Larry Geraty. I would welcome your collaboration on this. BelloWello (talk) 23:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
|
Cottrell
Extended content
|
---|
In response to your question re. Cottrell: what does a Mainstream adventist even mean? Seeing that you went to Fountain View, I'm guessing that your definition of mainstream differs from mine, considering Fountainview's positions on a great many issues. Me? As long as they play good music (in other words, good beat, good band), the speakers are interesting, they're not intolerant, and I have friends, I don't give a fuck what a church teaches. BelloWello (talk) 20:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
|
April 2011
Extended content
| ||
---|---|---|
![]() In particular, the three-revert rule states that:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. ![]() In particular, the three-revert rule states that:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. BelloWello (talk) 03:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
|
Discussion at SAU
Extended content
|
---|
Hey FVK, If there's anything you want added to the discussion at the talk page for Southern Adventist University, just post it here and I'll be happy to copy paste it to the appropriate thread. Alright? BelloWello (talk) 16:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC
Working collaboratively on the Talk page is always the preferred way to proceed, but should Fountain feel inspired he is completely within policy to damn the torpedoes and edit away per WP:BRD. Fountain, you have been here long enough to know 3RR. The block was justified. You were foolish to allow yourself to be dragged into an edit war with an editor who was counting your reverts and according to one editor leaving "misleading edit sums." Stop complaining and get back to improving the encyclopedia. Lionel (talk) 03:42, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
|
Incivility
Extended content
|
---|
Hello, Fountainviewkid. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. BelloWello (talk) 05:47, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
|
May 2011
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f1/Stop_hand_nuvola.svg/30px-Stop_hand_nuvola.svg.png)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Southern Adventist University. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.
In particular, the three-revert rule states that:
- Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. VQuakr (talk) 21:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- Shouldn't BelloWello (talk) also receive this as well? Otherwise wouldn't that be somewhat hypocritical, especially since I am merely trying to use the source wording and he keeps trying to change it to fit a certain POV. Fountainviewkid (talk) 21:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- Except BelloWello is carefully avoiding 3RR. Stop pushing your WP:AGENDA and collaborate a little. If you want to change the wording, WP:BRD requires discussion, and the onus is on the one changing the wording. BelloWello (talk) 21:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- Actually BelloWello did make 3RR. 02:42, 2 May 2011, 20:01, 2 May 2011, 21:11, 2 May 2011, 21:33, 2 May 2011. I am trying to have the wording fit the source. Why will you only accept one phrase in the source but not the other?Fountainviewkid (talk) 21:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- The fourth one is novel content, so I'm currently right at the bright line, refusing to cross it. You on the other hand, have changed it to "suspended" four times, so you have crossed 3RR. I'm not going to make a report at this point, however.. BelloWello (talk) 21:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- Uh no. I added certain phrasing to make it "novel content" just as you did. Both of us have changed that section to fit our view 4 times. You have made it "ended" or "put the breaks on" while I have put "suspended". 1 of those edits was in line with the source. The other 3 were not. All of mine, however were in line. Fountainviewkid (talk) 21:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I reverted to previous wording "ended" three times, then changed it to novel content "put the breaks on" the final time, for a total of three reversions. You reverted to previous wording "suspended" four times, meaning it was a violation of 3RR. All the edits are allowable under the source, and there is no exception to 3RR for being right, only for removing libel about a living person, which doesn't apply since SAU isn't even a person. BelloWello (talk) 22:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- You changed the meaning and words in opposition to another editor. I believe that is still considered very close to 3RR if not that. All my edits were allowable as well and I believe may be superior, in the sense that they used the source wording.Fountainviewkid (talk) 22:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I reverted to previous wording "ended" three times, then changed it to novel content "put the breaks on" the final time, for a total of three reversions. You reverted to previous wording "suspended" four times, meaning it was a violation of 3RR. All the edits are allowable under the source, and there is no exception to 3RR for being right, only for removing libel about a living person, which doesn't apply since SAU isn't even a person. BelloWello (talk) 22:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- Uh no. I added certain phrasing to make it "novel content" just as you did. Both of us have changed that section to fit our view 4 times. You have made it "ended" or "put the breaks on" while I have put "suspended". 1 of those edits was in line with the source. The other 3 were not. All of mine, however were in line. Fountainviewkid (talk) 21:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- The fourth one is novel content, so I'm currently right at the bright line, refusing to cross it. You on the other hand, have changed it to "suspended" four times, so you have crossed 3RR. I'm not going to make a report at this point, however.. BelloWello (talk) 21:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- Actually BelloWello did make 3RR. 02:42, 2 May 2011, 20:01, 2 May 2011, 21:11, 2 May 2011, 21:33, 2 May 2011. I am trying to have the wording fit the source. Why will you only accept one phrase in the source but not the other?Fountainviewkid (talk) 21:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- Except BelloWello is carefully avoiding 3RR. Stop pushing your WP:AGENDA and collaborate a little. If you want to change the wording, WP:BRD requires discussion, and the onus is on the one changing the wording. BelloWello (talk) 21:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
May 2011:Fountainview Academy
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f1/Stop_hand_nuvola.svg/30px-Stop_hand_nuvola.svg.png)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Fountainview Academy. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.
In particular, the three-revert rule states that:
- Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f1/Stop_hand_nuvola.svg/30px-Stop_hand_nuvola.svg.png)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.
In particular, the three-revert rule states that:
- Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.
- Here we go again. I am trying to improve the Fountainview Academy article by adding references and changing wording. BelloWello (talk) has been messing up this article by trying to delete whole sections. I have been careful not to revert, but rather to revise in order to create a better article. I have been working on this article because it needs a lot of revision, but that doesn't mean it should be cut. As for "previous blocks, etc." those are from a long time ago and are a red herring. BelloWello (talk) has been following me around for a long time trying to engage in many edit wars. Fountainviewkid 23:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello Fountainviewkid. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
- editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
- participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
- linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.
For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. In general, if you edit articles related to you or your school, you represent a conflict of interest. Jasper Deng (talk) 23:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- I am not "affiliated" with the article I am editing. I am merely trying to work on improving a description of it. Having attended a place is not exactly the same as "affiliation". Fountainviewkid 23:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- You are affiliated - affiliated here being defined as having any sort of relation with, including being a former student.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- Wikipedia allows for those who have connections to pages to edit as long as the edits are in line. For example, on the Southern Adventist University article we have someone from the school editing the page, but he is allowed because he is keeping with the policies. Fountainviewkid 23:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- But you aren't.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- I looked at the conflict of interest page, and do not seem myself as violating it. I am not representing any organization. Fountainviewkid 00:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- Actually you are - being a former student makes it hard to write neutral things about your school. The tone of your additions was highly inappropriate in that sense.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- I looked at the conflict of interest page, and do not seem myself as violating it. I am not representing any organization. Fountainviewkid 00:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- But you aren't.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- Wikipedia allows for those who have connections to pages to edit as long as the edits are in line. For example, on the Southern Adventist University article we have someone from the school editing the page, but he is allowed because he is keeping with the policies. Fountainviewkid 23:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- You are affiliated - affiliated here being defined as having any sort of relation with, including being a former student.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- Note - the editor on the Southern Adventist University article has not edited the article itself (only the talk page) since I pointed out his conflict of interest. BelloWello (talk) 00:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
FYI
While not the subject, you have been mentioned in an incident here. Lionel (talk) 01:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
COIN
You have been mentioned at WP:COIN.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
COI
Even if you added references, it may still be a problem if the tone of your additions is not appropriate.Jasper Deng (talk) 17:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
- I agree, though I believe the tone has been appropriate. I am working to make it a balanced and professional article. Fountainviewkid 2:53, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Formatting
If you use {{Collapse top}} multiple times on the same page, then you need to add {{Collapse bottom}} before each new {{Collapse top}} template, not all at the bottom. I've fixed it for you.
If you were trying to simply hide all of the old content in one block, then you only need one pair of
Extended content
|
---|
and |}: one at the top of the block, and one at the bottom, no matter how many section headings intervene. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:37, 7 May 2011 (UTC) |
ANI mention
I have mentioned you at WP:ANI.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:11, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f1/Stop_hand_nuvola.svg/30px-Stop_hand_nuvola.svg.png)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Southern Adventist University. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.
In particular, the three-revert rule states that:
- Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 23:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
- I believe I may be dealing with a sockpuppet. How do I go about dealing with such an issue. I don't want to keep reverting but I don't know what to do otherwise. Fountainviewkid 23:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
- I have made a sockpuppet investigation. Don't revert unless the investigation comes out as a positive. But, it may be worth asking another user instead, as I don't completely understand either.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'll take your advice. This seemed extremely random, especially since a certain user has gone silent for the last 45 minutes while this new user Tata has gone crazy. Fountainviewkid 23:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
- Apparently, the new user had been WP:Canvassed. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BelloWello.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:22, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
- The grandpa thing sounds extremely suspicious. Note that one of the edits has already been reverted on it's page. Thankfully this led the SAU page to be protected. No more reversions for a while. Fountainviewkid 23:24, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
- Apparently, the new user had been WP:Canvassed. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BelloWello.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:22, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'll take your advice. This seemed extremely random, especially since a certain user has gone silent for the last 45 minutes while this new user Tata has gone crazy. Fountainviewkid 23:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
- I have made a sockpuppet investigation. Don't revert unless the investigation comes out as a positive. But, it may be worth asking another user instead, as I don't completely understand either.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Cottrell
You say you have a few sources. Please list them or else we still have to remove the content per WP:BLP.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- I have previous found some sources. One problem though is that they seemed to not be available. When I do a google search using the wording I can get the source but it refuses to open up. It's a source at LaSierra's website. Perhaps someone saw this debate and decided to make that link no longer available. I do have another source however that labels him (in a group) as "liberals". Perhaps we could use that term as well? The only problem with the source for "liberal" is that Bello will debate it like crazy b/c while it comes from an academic within the SDA church he recently worked to get the person's Wiki page deleted. This will lead to a contentious debate about if the source is proper or not, though the author is valid enough to be quoted I think. I really don't know what to do on this. The source btw is [[2]]. It's not self-published though as it appears. It's actually from a book which I own and which I can provide proper citations. Fountainviewkid 00:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- It does not mention "progressive."Jasper Deng (talk) 00:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- The Adventist today obituary does. Fountainviewkid 00:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Source?Jasper Deng (talk) 01:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- [[3]]. This is the same source just at a different location. Fountainviewkid 1:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Doesn't specifically call this person a progressive, only saying he/she had held a few progressive positions.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Right and that is specifically the wording in the article right now and which we are trying to keep. The wording in the article says "the late Raymond Cottrell, who took a number of progressive positions". That's the exactly terminology of the label. I don't know what else your complaint is. I supposed we can change the word "took" to "held" but that's essentially the same. Fountainviewkid 3:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- You still haven't shown why those positions from one sentence of the article is worth including out of the whole article. You seem to be trying to discredit him by looking for the tangental mention of some non-mainstream view he held, when the vast majority were mainstream. bW 03:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- They are important because they provide context to what is right now a quoted rant with no context. It's bias guised as scholarly. You seem to be trying to discredit Southern with his quote which I am trying to properly contextualize. The vast majority of his views were NOT mainstream. That is very clear from many many sources. Fountainviewkid 3:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- No, its a scholarly paper from a respected, influential mainstream scholar. I am NOT trying to do anything which isn't found in reliable sources. You have shown HOW MANY positions that weren't mainstream, two or three? How about we include this information from the same article that is pertinent.
Was Ray right in all these progressive positions? I suggest that question misses the larger issue. The point is that Ray epitomized the spirit of Adventism and its fearless pioneers in conscientiously advocating what he saw as vital and true. (emphasis mine)
I knew all along that I was working with a great man, but only in the last couple of months have I come to realize Ray's personal eminence. As a father and husband, as well as churchman and scholar, Raymond was exemplary. But further, Ray's intellectual integrity and spiritual serenity were the bedrock of his personal commitment to others and his courageous theological leadership in his church. Truly great persons need not be physically imposing nor vocally loud, and Ray was neither. Ray was a quiet giant.
- Let's include these parts, it is far more representative of views about him and is important to contextualize how respected he was in the church. Also, lets note that his accomplishments, such as founding the Biblical Research Institute, Adventist Today, editing the Adventist Review and writing/editing the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary. Let's not pick and choose what we want to highlight to suit the message you want to send that he was "extreme." bW 03:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- While the paper may be scholarly some of the statement inside of it are very unscholarly and full of ranting against anything not left wing Adventism. Face it he was NOT a mainstream scholar. If he were such a mainstream scholar how come he took so many non mainstream positions? I would be happy to list them for you; there's more than 2 or 3, including some huge pillars of the faith. You yourself admitted that you don't agree with all these pillars so of course to you he is mainstream. To the wider church however he is not, unless LaSierra University and Adventist Today have all the sudden become mainstream. If they have that's news to me. I only say we should include the "progressive" part to contextualize the rant that you insist in keeping in the article. It's not picking and choosing it's contextualizing. If we are going to have bias in there it needs to be properly stated, which your edition would not make it such. You are the one trying to make Southern sound "extreme" and negative. That last sentence is essentially a quote from your fellow editors on Southern Adventist University including one in which you have collaborated with.Fountainviewkid 3:49, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- No, its a scholarly paper from a respected, influential mainstream scholar. I am NOT trying to do anything which isn't found in reliable sources. You have shown HOW MANY positions that weren't mainstream, two or three? How about we include this information from the same article that is pertinent.
- They are important because they provide context to what is right now a quoted rant with no context. It's bias guised as scholarly. You seem to be trying to discredit Southern with his quote which I am trying to properly contextualize. The vast majority of his views were NOT mainstream. That is very clear from many many sources. Fountainviewkid 3:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- You still haven't shown why those positions from one sentence of the article is worth including out of the whole article. You seem to be trying to discredit him by looking for the tangental mention of some non-mainstream view he held, when the vast majority were mainstream. bW 03:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Right and that is specifically the wording in the article right now and which we are trying to keep. The wording in the article says "the late Raymond Cottrell, who took a number of progressive positions". That's the exactly terminology of the label. I don't know what else your complaint is. I supposed we can change the word "took" to "held" but that's essentially the same. Fountainviewkid 3:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Doesn't specifically call this person a progressive, only saying he/she had held a few progressive positions.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- [[3]]. This is the same source just at a different location. Fountainviewkid 1:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Source?Jasper Deng (talk) 01:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- The Adventist today obituary does. Fountainviewkid 00:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
You know, since its controversial whether this source is reliable or not, I believe per WP:BLP we should remove all this information altogether - I do not think the sources we have are reliable enough, but more importantly, we don't have other sources.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Maybe but why should this be WP:BLP? He's been dead several years now. It was recent but not THAT recent. Also what do you mean by we should remove "all this information"? If you mean getting rid of the whole "ideology" section I guess that would be a compromise in a way. I'm not exactly in favor of such an option but it's better than the current impasse probably. Fountainviewkid 3:59, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Even if BLP isn't applicable, I say that if its hard to say whether a source supports our content or not, remove the content in question.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think it's hard to say. The source clearly says he was an advocate for "progressive positions". There should be nothing in question about that. Other editors have agreed and have pushed for keeping the statement in there. If we are to remove the content then we should remove the whole Ideology section. Otherwise no compromise has been made. Instead Bello get's everything he wants and the other editors get nothing, in spite of our disagreements. I saw we either come to a compromise agreement or remove the whole part causing controversy. Fountainviewkid 4:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- BelloWello is questioning the strength of your source, and so am I.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yes you are 2 editors against (at least) 2 other editors. Both myself and Lionel support the source and the phrase's inclusion. Other editors such as simba seem to be in agreement as well. Until we reach a compromise or consensus no action should be taken. :This is a controversial edit and therefore is in violation of the rules regarding it's request. Fountainviewkid 4:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Donald has clearly stated that the progressive label is unwarranted as well. I agree, this is a controversial edit, hence, it should be left alone (left out) until or if consensus is reached to include. bW 04:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Donald has also stated "If the source is obviously a rant, or intensely biased, then even if the author is a respected scholar, the rant should be considered unacceptable." Donald then charges that" Cottrell's essay cited in the Southern wikipedia article is very close to a rant" and lists a number of problems he has with the citation. As he puts it Cottrell's "intense bias is obvious by use of such words and phrases as Southern Bible belt obscurantism". Finally (and I hope Jasper sees this) Donald argues "Cottell is not writing for scholarship. Rather, he is playing to his readership and venting. Perhaps rightfully so, but to cite Cottrell in this mood as sound thinking scholarship is to misuse this particular Cottrell source." Therefore if we were to go Donald's route we would probably delete the whole ideology section. His is pretty much the compromise position. My position is to have everything included (progressive label & rant) while Bello only want's the rant. From what I see those are the 3 options. The only real 4th alternative is to try and edit the phrasing more, while still keeping the basic format but that would essentially be a soft version of my position. Fountainviewkid 4:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Donald has clearly stated that the progressive label is unwarranted as well. I agree, this is a controversial edit, hence, it should be left alone (left out) until or if consensus is reached to include. bW 04:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yes you are 2 editors against (at least) 2 other editors. Both myself and Lionel support the source and the phrase's inclusion. Other editors such as simba seem to be in agreement as well. Until we reach a compromise or consensus no action should be taken. :This is a controversial edit and therefore is in violation of the rules regarding it's request. Fountainviewkid 4:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- BelloWello is questioning the strength of your source, and so am I.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think it's hard to say. The source clearly says he was an advocate for "progressive positions". There should be nothing in question about that. Other editors have agreed and have pushed for keeping the statement in there. If we are to remove the content then we should remove the whole Ideology section. Otherwise no compromise has been made. Instead Bello get's everything he wants and the other editors get nothing, in spite of our disagreements. I saw we either come to a compromise agreement or remove the whole part causing controversy. Fountainviewkid 4:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Even if BLP isn't applicable, I say that if its hard to say whether a source supports our content or not, remove the content in question.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Donald made this edit to the article to implement his change to clarify that it was just Cottrell's opinion, to which I made this change and he replied "I looked over your newer wording. I think it helps." Nowhere does Donald promote adding the Progressive label, in fact he explicitly states the opposite. So why again should we include a label that three editors oppose? There is NO CONSENSUS for such an addition. I would be in favor of returning to the wording Donald made and I edited (with his agrement) however. bW 04:49, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Donald it appears would support the compromise position which is remove the whole controversial section all together. That's not my preference but it's better than your uncontectualized rant. I only say we should include the label IF we allow the rant. It's a label currently supported by half the editors, but supposedly you aren't keeping polls. I would be in favor of a compromise, but so far you have proposed none. For you it seems to be your way or nothing.Fountainviewkid 5:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- No, actually Donald clearly stated that he was also going to look for statements from Standish or someone else to balance the statement. He just wanted it to be clear that it was opinion. So I propose we go back to the compromise consensus that Donald proposed as outlined above. bW 05:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Do I need to "requote" to you what exactly Donald said? He stated quite clearly the the quote you want to keep was pretty much a rant and not scholarly. We didn't get any balancing statements therefore I say we either have the compromise and keep both changes or we have the compromise and get rid of the whole section. Your proposal is not for compromise at all. Instead it's a back-handed way to try and take out any context that would weaken the "extreme" claims that have been inserted into the article. Furthermore, your "compromise" is opposed by several other editors. Let's get either a REAL compromise (not a Bellow one) or let's reach a consensus.Fountainviewkid 5:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- It's not my compromise, its the previous consensus compromise. We do not undue consensus unless we get clear consensus to do so. The lack of consensus is not reason to undo the previous one. bW 05:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Actually it is "your" compromise as it's not really any compromise. Your suggestion is that we return the wording to the way you would like it, in spite of the objections of several editors. If we have a lack of consensus then maybe we should temporarily remove the whole controversial section until we can reach an agreement. Personally I believe that would be true compromise.Fountainviewkid 5:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, as outlined above, Donald made the edits and proposed the current compromise. That was agreed on and is the current consensus. There is no consensus for any changes from that at this time, hence, until consensus is reached, we should leave it AS WAS PREVIOUSLY AGREED. bW 05:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Actually it is "your" compromise as it's not really any compromise. Your suggestion is that we return the wording to the way you would like it, in spite of the objections of several editors. If we have a lack of consensus then maybe we should temporarily remove the whole controversial section until we can reach an agreement. Personally I believe that would be true compromise.Fountainviewkid 5:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- It's not my compromise, its the previous consensus compromise. We do not undue consensus unless we get clear consensus to do so. The lack of consensus is not reason to undo the previous one. bW 05:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- You are making demands against the previous compromise consensus, then calling your demands compromises. That is laughable. The compromise is to keep the current compromise. If it was up to me, we would change the wording back to what I originally put, but the consensus at the end of the previous discussion was the previous consensus. There is no consensus undo the previous consensus, therefore it stays as is. Any questions? bW 05:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- You are doing exactly what you accuse me of doing. I am against your removing the "compromise" that is currently in place on the article. The current compromise has both the rant (your view) and the label (myself and Lionel) in it. You are trying to demand that the label be removed but want to keep the rant. That's not compromise, that's manipulation. What are proposing is essentially what you originally put. The changes would be very minor at the most. We should keep either the whole section as it is, or compromise and do away with it. That or you propose a REAL compromise. Fountainviewkid 5:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Let's compare the views here: You and Lionelt (and probably Simba) want to include the label with the sourcing currently available. Donald proposed the previous compromise. Jasper and I (and probably Hrafn) are okay with the current compromise and oppose attempts to add a poorly sourced label. That does NOT mean there is consensus to alter previous consensus. Hence, we stick with previous compromise. bW 05:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yes we do want to include the label. Donald it seems would probably like the whole section to be either removed or sourced in a more balanced manner. Right now the current compromise is with the label which is not poorly sourced. I say either we get a compromise or we leave both the rant and the label. Your proposal involves NO compromise, other than making your own views the rule on the page. Fountainviewkid 5:32, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Let's compare the views here: You and Lionelt (and probably Simba) want to include the label with the sourcing currently available. Donald proposed the previous compromise. Jasper and I (and probably Hrafn) are okay with the current compromise and oppose attempts to add a poorly sourced label. That does NOT mean there is consensus to alter previous consensus. Hence, we stick with previous compromise. bW 05:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- You are doing exactly what you accuse me of doing. I am against your removing the "compromise" that is currently in place on the article. The current compromise has both the rant (your view) and the label (myself and Lionel) in it. You are trying to demand that the label be removed but want to keep the rant. That's not compromise, that's manipulation. What are proposing is essentially what you originally put. The changes would be very minor at the most. We should keep either the whole section as it is, or compromise and do away with it. That or you propose a REAL compromise. Fountainviewkid 5:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Do I need to "requote" to you what exactly Donald said? He stated quite clearly the the quote you want to keep was pretty much a rant and not scholarly. We didn't get any balancing statements therefore I say we either have the compromise and keep both changes or we have the compromise and get rid of the whole section. Your proposal is not for compromise at all. Instead it's a back-handed way to try and take out any context that would weaken the "extreme" claims that have been inserted into the article. Furthermore, your "compromise" is opposed by several other editors. Let's get either a REAL compromise (not a Bellow one) or let's reach a consensus.Fountainviewkid 5:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- No, actually Donald clearly stated that he was also going to look for statements from Standish or someone else to balance the statement. He just wanted it to be clear that it was opinion. So I propose we go back to the compromise consensus that Donald proposed as outlined above. bW 05:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
BelloWello
BelloWello has been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet of WikiManOne (talk · contribs) by a checkuser. Mathsci (talk) 23:41, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thank-you for the update. A shocking and sad conclusion, but hopefully now we can get back to peace at Southern Adventist University and other pages. Fountainviewkid 23:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
SAU
Fountain you are at 3RR. Stop now. Tata is over 3RR and will be reported has been blocked. Lionel (talk) 08:16, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry I was trying to stop the vandalism. It seems we have another editor who is trying to remove the "progressive" designation. What can we do about this? Fountainviewkid 19:54, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Southern Adventist University
Please do not add unsourced content, as you did to Southern Adventist University. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.
You reverted my removal of the material over which you have been edit warring with User:Tatababy, your ref cite for which was a dead link. You state you "will be adding correct link shortly" -- you really need to find a correct citation before you put the controversial material back in. And your link to Bluehost.com, which appears to be a shared webhosting site, could in fact be anyone's web site, maybe even yours, but certainly not a reliable source. You appear to have a history of edit warring and have been previously sanctioned. I don't intend to participate in an edit war with you. However, I would strongly suggest you self revert until you have a correct and reliably sourced citation. Mojoworker (talk) 19:26, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- Please do not do it again, Fountainviewkid. I hope we don't have to take this to WP:ANI - you definitely know better. Understanding policies like WP:RS in detail helps avoid this kind of trouble. After all, don't edit war even if you end up being correct. Concerning User:Tatababy though he/she is a confirmed (accidental) meatpuppet of User:BelloWello, he/she may actually be right even if the edit summaries of he/she are not the correct ones.Jasper Deng (talk) 19:36, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- I only posted the obituary that could be linked in online format. Adventist Today is also in hard copy print. This link has been in there and has been supported by Lionel, Simba, and others on the article. Tata was trying to remove what was already pretty much considered acceptable. We compromised and then Tata tried to undo the compromise. I only used the Web hosting cite because Adventist Today no longer has the obituary (the source for the statement) up on it's website (for free). Jasper you should remember that we were trying to reach a compromise, until Bello was found to be a sockpuppet which I thought essentially ended the whole discussion. This material should be kept in, unless a consensus is found which right now the closest thing we have to a consensus is to keep it in. Fountainviewkid 19:48, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- If it has been removed, sorry, we can't use it as a source.Jasper Deng (talk) 19:52, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- Wait, why? It's from a magazine. Shouldn't I be able to post the source as a magazine instead? If I do that will it be considered valid? Fountainviewkid 19:55, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- The sources must be accessible to everyone if they are web sources. Obituaries aren't necessarily reliable in the first case.Jasper Deng (talk) 19:59, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- They are accessible. It's a journal magazine. A magazine, last I checked just like a book is considered a reliable source even though it's not entirely accessible to everyone. And to be honest it's not a true obituary. It's more of a biography written by an authoritative person about the individual in question. I think before making any quick moves we should first discuss this on the Talk page. Fountainviewkid 20:02, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- I just checked and it's definitely NOT an obituary since it is written 12 days before Cottrell died. It's more of a memorial detailing the main accomplishments in his life as well as his contributions to the church, its institutions and its theology. As for the Blue host site; I noticed that Blue host is actually the web hosting site for the organization Adventist Today. Adventist Today is a source which has been confirmed as reliable by Lionel, Simba, Donald, Bello, and myself. Only Hrafn seemed to have a problem with it, which makes sense as he also has very little knowledge (like Mojo) about the topic area. Thankfully we are having a good discussion on the Talk page of the article. Hopefully no one will get blocked for their contributions or taken to WP:ANI (wiki wood shed) for trying to improve the article. Fountainviewkid 6:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- They are accessible. It's a journal magazine. A magazine, last I checked just like a book is considered a reliable source even though it's not entirely accessible to everyone. And to be honest it's not a true obituary. It's more of a biography written by an authoritative person about the individual in question. I think before making any quick moves we should first discuss this on the Talk page. Fountainviewkid 20:02, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- The sources must be accessible to everyone if they are web sources. Obituaries aren't necessarily reliable in the first case.Jasper Deng (talk) 19:59, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- Wait, why? It's from a magazine. Shouldn't I be able to post the source as a magazine instead? If I do that will it be considered valid? Fountainviewkid 19:55, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- If it has been removed, sorry, we can't use it as a source.Jasper Deng (talk) 19:52, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- I only posted the obituary that could be linked in online format. Adventist Today is also in hard copy print. This link has been in there and has been supported by Lionel, Simba, and others on the article. Tata was trying to remove what was already pretty much considered acceptable. We compromised and then Tata tried to undo the compromise. I only used the Web hosting cite because Adventist Today no longer has the obituary (the source for the statement) up on it's website (for free). Jasper you should remember that we were trying to reach a compromise, until Bello was found to be a sockpuppet which I thought essentially ended the whole discussion. This material should be kept in, unless a consensus is found which right now the closest thing we have to a consensus is to keep it in. Fountainviewkid 19:48, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Mojo & Jasper. I don't know if you've kept up with the discussion on the Talk page, but I wanted to point something that came out of the discussion that is relevant to your comments on here. First, Lionel admitted that HE was the one who posted the "dead link" and cited in, rather than me. He also notes that the users who removed it (Bello & Tata) were both able to read and evaluate the source to make their judgment as to the acceptability of it. He then quotes from WP:DEADLINK
Do not delete factual information solely because the URL to the source does not work any longer. WP:Verifiability does not require that all information be supported by a working link, nor does it require the source to be published on-line.
Fountainviewkid 15:54, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, but a dead link is quite clearly not a reliable source. If you read further in the WP:DEADLINK article, at WP:DEADLINK#Keeping dead links the rational for keeping a deadlink is explained as follows:
A dead, unarchived source URL may still be useful. Such a link indicates that information was (probably) verifiable in the past, and the link might provide another user with greater resources or expertise with enough information to find the reference.
- In other words, a deadlink may still provide some useful information, but a deadlink is not a verifiable source now. Also, please note the word solely in the quotation. I didn't remove it solely because it was a dead link. Rather, since the content had been challenged by several editors, I reverted it under WP:CHALLENGE
All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable published source using an inline citation. Cite the source clearly and precisely, with page numbers where appropriate.
- and WP:BURDEN
The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. You may remove any material lacking a reliable source that directly supports it.
- In any case, Jasper is correct. I'm sorry, but I'm really surprised you can't see why the dead link was not a reliable source (no matter who had seen it and vouched for it previously) and the bluehost.com link is only marginally better, since it could so easily spoofed as on this page, if I had paid to host it at Bluehost. Yes, you could have (and maybe shoud have) used the hard copy offline source, if you had access to it -- see WP:Offline sources. But you need to provide the full citation including the page number (and perhaps a scan of the page cited) and they are much more likely to be challenged, especially in a case such as this where your original citations were rejected. I dunno, maybe you are just being argumentative because you're mad at me or something. I can see from your standpoint that I may have treated you with less good faith than I should have. I saw the edit war where User:Tatababy was blocked for 60 hours and you repeatedly re-inserting your version supported by a non-existent citation. I then saw your previous sanctions for edit warring and I jumped to the conclusion that you were POV pushing and biting Tatababy. I apologize if that wasn't the case. Mojoworker (talk) 19:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the apology. As for the source, it seems we have moved on from that contentious debate. Your entry into it, did do one very good thing however as it led to a compromise that all sides seems like they can support. As for the Offline sources, I'm sorry but I have seen plenty of pages that merely provide book references. A scan of a page is a little much. And it's not going to be challenged except by someone who doesn't know much about the sources. That is where hopefully Donald and some of the others can jump in. You seem to forget that even the opposition to the contentious label agreed that the source was reliable and in existence. I am not trying to be argumentative, however you are the one who keeps pushing this issue. Yes it would be correct to say I am mad, seeing as I was accused falsely, warned I would be brought to ANI, and reverted without proper discussion. That is why I have come to support discussion and the Talk page. It would have been more helpful if the Talk page were utilized, but thankfully, that has now occurred. Notice also that those who are leading the Talk page discussion actually have the background knowledge of the sources and issue. This is one problem with wikipedia where anyone can comment and edit (including administrators) yet may not have a lot of knowledge as to the issues under debate. What looks like deceptive edit warring from your perspective may actually be protection from vandalism from the other. I can see where you are coming from as your understanding is logical, even if it was not correct. Thanks for at least being willing to allow us to continue this discussion and reach a successful compromise. Please, however, next time try not to jump all over those of us you suspect of not editing in good faith. Hopefully we can all learn from this lesson. I'll try to be more careful as well. Fountainviewkid 19:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, there are plenty of pages that use book references, and they are perfectly fine -- unless someone challenges them. Hmmm, now maybe you owe me an apology. You shouldn't really be mad at me. I never threatened to take this to ANI (I would have taken it to RSN, but I didn't threaten that either) and I didn't accuse you falsely or revert you without proper discussion, as you are contending. Let me try to explain the part I think you are not understanding. The problem all along from my perspective was your citation with the dead link that you kept re-inserting. Hopefully you now understand why that's not a reliable source, even if it was reliable at the time it was originally inserted. If you look at WP:Verifiability you will see the following near the top of the page:
- Notice that Verifiability is a policy. Next see WP:CONLIMITED and note that
Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope.
- You were violating policy and that's why I reverted your edit. And I explained why both here and on the article talk page. You reverted my edit because you claim I was violating the article talk page consensus. But that does not apply in this case per WP:CONLIMITED -- policy trumps article consensus no matter how many subject matter experts there are on the talk page. And I didn't "accuse you falsely" -- you actually were violating policy by repeatedly re-inserting un-sourced material because of the dead link. And I accepted your explanation that you thought it was the Bluehost link that you were inserting. And while I initially thought you were POV pushing, I never accused you of it. But, as I said previously, I probably could have been more diplomatic about things. Anyway, we're probably beating a dead horse, but I'm just trying to help you avoid a repeat of this problem in the future. Let me know if you have any questions. Mojoworker (talk) 07:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- You should discuss this with the editor who added the link (Lionel), not myself. We are working towards a consensus on the Talk page. It's better to discuss issues there than go and remove parts of an article. Fountainviewkid 12:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- I think there is still a misunderstanding. After you pointed out the dead link I realize that you were right so I switched it to the print format (Journal, Date, title). I probably formatted it wrongly, which may explain the continued confusion. I don't know what is wrong though with posting the print source if it's the same thing. Also the blue host site then became merely to "provide another user with greater resources or expertise with enough information to find the reference". Sorry for the confusion. Fountainviewkid 15:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter that Lionel originally added it, the edits during the edit war with Tatababy were your edits and you are responsible for them. Once again, see WP:BURDEN and note that "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. You may remove any material lacking a reliable source that directly supports it." Note the restores material verbiage which pertains to you as well as the "You may remove any material lacking a reliable source that directly supports it" which pertains to me in this case.
- I think there is still a misunderstanding. After you pointed out the dead link I realize that you were right so I switched it to the print format (Journal, Date, title). I probably formatted it wrongly, which may explain the continued confusion. I don't know what is wrong though with posting the print source if it's the same thing. Also the blue host site then became merely to "provide another user with greater resources or expertise with enough information to find the reference". Sorry for the confusion. Fountainviewkid 15:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- You should discuss this with the editor who added the link (Lionel), not myself. We are working towards a consensus on the Talk page. It's better to discuss issues there than go and remove parts of an article. Fountainviewkid 12:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- There is nothing wrong with citing the print version. If you have access to it, just end all this drama and provide the full citation -- see WP:Offline sources
Special care should be taken when using offline sources. Make sure to provide full bibliographic information, often by using a fully-filled out citation template, like {{cite book}} or {{cite news}}. Complete information helps Wikipedia's readers find the source when they need it, and also increases the source's credibility among the Wikipedia editing community (who may otherwise be skeptical of its reliability). Second, use the quote= parameter within those citation templates to provide some context for the reference. This is especially important when using the off-line source to support a fact that might be controversial or is likely to be challenged. Sometimes, the use of an offline source will be challenged. Be sure to assume good faith for the user who cited the offline source. They might even be able to provide you a scan or an excerpt from that source.
- There is nothing wrong with citing the print version. If you have access to it, just end all this drama and provide the full citation -- see WP:Offline sources
- But you can't just change a web citation to a book citation if you don't have the physical version to cite from, because there's no guarantee that they are the same and there's no way you could fully fill out the citation template. Often web and print versions of publications differ substantially. Also, as I mentioned, in a case such as this where your original citations were challenged and rejected, someone is likely to challenge that you made up the book reference and never had access to the physical document. Mojoworker (talk) 21:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- I've seen the physical version. While I admit I don't currently possess it I would probably obtain the hard copy if needed (though in a library). Yes web and print do sometimes differ but this appears to be in both of them. That's why Donald each time verified the content of the source even though he may have disagreed with the label. Both of us know Adventist Today and know that is is reliable and has that kind of information there including the "biography". Yes people can challenge the source, which if that were the case pretty much any historical reference not online could be challenged. That's why I have as much information as I could remember offhand. I could probably get the page number after a visit to the library, but that would take some time, that's why I simply posted the link but used the print version for reference. The link provides the reference, and even if you don't trust it's reliable for those who know Adventist Today they can easily look and see that is the same website just under the hosting site's address. I would venture to guess you didn't do too much investigation of the blue host site as I did. I deleted part of the address (the title) and ended right back at the Journal website only still under the host address. Either way, Bello also affirmed that the article existed. Notice, the disagreement was not about the existence of the article (or "biography") but rather about whether the source was appropriate, reliable, etc. As for Lionel, please see what he himself said on the Talk Page. He took ownership for the edits and asked that they not be removed since HE added them and re-added them. Notice I was not JUST the only person making this type of edit. Look at the history and you should be able to see that. The material has always had a reliable source. Adventist Today (both print and online) are reliable sources. As I noted I haven't added the "full citation" as I don't have access to it (at the moment). I can probably get that though it seems this issue is being solved. Fountainviewkid 21:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- But it isn't properly cited now and it has been challenged. The burden of proof is now on you if you want to keep it there. Rather than engage in an edit war, why not just leave it out until such time as you can properly cite it? How many times does it need to be said? The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Mojoworker (talk) 21:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- I've seen the physical version. While I admit I don't currently possess it I would probably obtain the hard copy if needed (though in a library). Yes web and print do sometimes differ but this appears to be in both of them. That's why Donald each time verified the content of the source even though he may have disagreed with the label. Both of us know Adventist Today and know that is is reliable and has that kind of information there including the "biography". Yes people can challenge the source, which if that were the case pretty much any historical reference not online could be challenged. That's why I have as much information as I could remember offhand. I could probably get the page number after a visit to the library, but that would take some time, that's why I simply posted the link but used the print version for reference. The link provides the reference, and even if you don't trust it's reliable for those who know Adventist Today they can easily look and see that is the same website just under the hosting site's address. I would venture to guess you didn't do too much investigation of the blue host site as I did. I deleted part of the address (the title) and ended right back at the Journal website only still under the host address. Either way, Bello also affirmed that the article existed. Notice, the disagreement was not about the existence of the article (or "biography") but rather about whether the source was appropriate, reliable, etc. As for Lionel, please see what he himself said on the Talk Page. He took ownership for the edits and asked that they not be removed since HE added them and re-added them. Notice I was not JUST the only person making this type of edit. Look at the history and you should be able to see that. The material has always had a reliable source. Adventist Today (both print and online) are reliable sources. As I noted I haven't added the "full citation" as I don't have access to it (at the moment). I can probably get that though it seems this issue is being solved. Fountainviewkid 21:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- But you can't just change a web citation to a book citation if you don't have the physical version to cite from, because there's no guarantee that they are the same and there's no way you could fully fill out the citation template. Often web and print versions of publications differ substantially. Also, as I mentioned, in a case such as this where your original citations were challenged and rejected, someone is likely to challenge that you made up the book reference and never had access to the physical document. Mojoworker (talk) 21:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
BelloWello again
Hello, I advise you to respect BelloWello's preference that you not post on his talk page. Repeated posting of messages that have been read and removed can be considered harassment. Please do not provoke someone who does not wish to be contacted by you. Thank you very much. Cullen328 (talk) 14:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Okay sorry about that. I just wanted to let him know, that way it could be seen that I at least tried to communicate. I guess I thought the Talk page was for sending these kind of messages, as you did me on here. Perhaps I am wrong though. I will say away from his Talk page. If I have a message I will stay on the article Talk page. Fountain, viewkid 15:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- You are right in the case of two editors who have a cordial relationship, as I hope that you and I will have. You are wecome to visit my user page and talk page at any time. When two editors have a conflict, it is wise to heed one's request for the other to stay away. Please review WP:DRRC. If I can help mediate between the two of you, I am willing to try. Please avoid any editing that appears to violate WP:3RR. I wish you well. Cullen328 (talk) 18:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Okay thanks. That makes more sense. There have definitely been conflicts in the past between myself (as well as other editors) and this other editor. I am hoping however that the major conflict is being resolved. Fountainviewkid 20:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC
- I've tried to stay away from Bello, but he just returned the article and reverted it after we had agreed not to. I wrote on his Talk page since he's not responding on the article Talk page. Fountainviewkid 18:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- Okay thanks. That makes more sense. There have definitely been conflicts in the past between myself (as well as other editors) and this other editor. I am hoping however that the major conflict is being resolved. Fountainviewkid 20:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC
- You are right in the case of two editors who have a cordial relationship, as I hope that you and I will have. You are wecome to visit my user page and talk page at any time. When two editors have a conflict, it is wise to heed one's request for the other to stay away. Please review WP:DRRC. If I can help mediate between the two of you, I am willing to try. Please avoid any editing that appears to violate WP:3RR. I wish you well. Cullen328 (talk) 18:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
ANI
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 23:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
ANI-Southern Adventist University
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.Simbagraphix (talk) 12:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
BelloWello
Hi, kid! The editor now called BelloWello used to be another user. He is the cause of the General Sanctions now in force on all Abortion-related articles. He is disruptive. He needs to be put under a 1RR rule for all articles he edits, and, he needs to be prohibited from bringing anyone to any noticeboard for anything. Apparently he talked a couple admins into letting him change his username, claiming "privacy" concerns, probably with the goal of ditching his block log. The change to a new username was so poorly handled that now everyone knows his new one. I vigorously butted heads with wm1 several months ago but backed off when I found out how old he was. Now that he's old enough to die for his country, the gloves, though not exactly coming off, are certainly getting a lot looser. Kenatipo speak! 16:36, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- Not sure this answers your question. There's a policy called WP:CLEANSTART that they're applying here, but I haven't read it. As you can see, I'm very cynical about his motives. AGF until someone's repeated behavior indicates it's time to ABF! Kenatipo speak! 16:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- Kenatipo you crack me up. The "new" Bello did not apply for CLEANSTART: he stated this at ANI. He was an alternate account due to outing. This means that his disruption from his old account is supposed to follow him to Bello. It's my understaiding that Bello falls under WP:SOCK#LEGIT. I can't believe how much time has been wasted on all of Bello's identities. Every night when I go to bed I say a rosary and pray that Bello takes up arthropodology. Lionel (talk) 23:47, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- Any of you 2 willing to use your 1 RR and undo all of Bello's biased additions and changes? He basically did like 3 in one. Why don't those admins who are so willing to report violations do something about him or at least revert his edits back to the original? Fountainviewkid 00:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- Kenatipo you crack me up. The "new" Bello did not apply for CLEANSTART: he stated this at ANI. He was an alternate account due to outing. This means that his disruption from his old account is supposed to follow him to Bello. It's my understaiding that Bello falls under WP:SOCK#LEGIT. I can't believe how much time has been wasted on all of Bello's identities. Every night when I go to bed I say a rosary and pray that Bello takes up arthropodology. Lionel (talk) 23:47, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
1RR
Please self revert your revert made here since that is your second revert today per the 1RR sanctions imposed by the community. bW 16:22, 27 May 2011 (UTC)