→Children's Museum backstage pass: new section |
m →Your Censorship and Edit Warring of the Joel Osteen Page: new section |
||
Line 158: | Line 158: | ||
|[[The Children's Museum of Indianapolis]] is hosting its second '''[[WP:GLAM/TCMI/BackstagePass2|Backstage Pass]]''' and its first '''[[Wikipedia:GLAM/TCMI/Caplan Collection|Edit-a-Thon]]''' on '''Saturday, August 20'''. The museum is opening its doors to Wikipedians interested in learning about the museum's collection, taking them on a tour of the vast collection before spending the afternoon working with curators to improve articles relating to the Caplan Collection of folk toys and Creative Playthings objects. Please sign up on the [[WP:GLAM/TCMI/BackstagePass2|event page]] if you can attend, and if you'd like to participate virtually you can sign up on the [[WP:GLAM/TCMI/Caplan Collection|Edit-a-Thon page]]. ---[[User:LoriLee|LoriLee]] ([[User talk:LoriLee|talk]]) 15:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC) |
|[[The Children's Museum of Indianapolis]] is hosting its second '''[[WP:GLAM/TCMI/BackstagePass2|Backstage Pass]]''' and its first '''[[Wikipedia:GLAM/TCMI/Caplan Collection|Edit-a-Thon]]''' on '''Saturday, August 20'''. The museum is opening its doors to Wikipedians interested in learning about the museum's collection, taking them on a tour of the vast collection before spending the afternoon working with curators to improve articles relating to the Caplan Collection of folk toys and Creative Playthings objects. Please sign up on the [[WP:GLAM/TCMI/BackstagePass2|event page]] if you can attend, and if you'd like to participate virtually you can sign up on the [[WP:GLAM/TCMI/Caplan Collection|Edit-a-Thon page]]. ---[[User:LoriLee|LoriLee]] ([[User talk:LoriLee|talk]]) 15:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC) |
||
|} |
|} |
||
== Your Censorship and Edit Warring of the Joel Osteen Page == |
|||
It is always a wonderful thing when a censor or oppressor is forced to show their hand. It is an even better day when an agenda is exposed. You are a fraud, and that has been exposed through the "Joel Osteen Wikipedia Watch Group" that has formed as a direct result of your censorship control of Osteen's page for more than three years. The top of Wikipedia wonders why people don't want to edit anymore, as you and one or two others gang up to stifle outside editors. ([[User:Clubhrt|Clubhrt]] ([[User talk:Clubhrt|talk]]) 06:54, 6 September 2011 (UTC)) |
Revision as of 06:54, 6 September 2011
Welcome!
|
~ hooray for progress! ~
Thanks for working out an excellent compromise in the most contentious subsection of that official Mediation! There's more work to be done on the other subsections, but i think that for your success so far, you all deserve some extra whipped~cream and a lovely berry~on~top!
~Teledildonix314~Talk~4-1-1~ 13:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Collect
As a participant in the RfC, this is to inform you that Brendan19 has recently filed a request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#edit warring by collect and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
The Four Deuces (talk) 06:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Over, I trust
All the ANIs, WQA, CUs, RFC/Us and RFARs are over, I trust. I sincerely thank you for voicing your position on the RFC/U on me. I did not canvass anyone, and in order to avoid any claims that I canvassd, I waited until now (the request to reopen the RFC/U seems dead). Again, many thanks! Collect (talk) 12:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
See also Heresy
Please do not remove this again. See also only leads readers to other articles that may interest them that are not dealt with in the article. A quick google search or Heresy and Emerging Church will provide numerous sources if you would like them added to the article. I felt this would be the best way to deal with the nettle, rather than firmly seize it with both hands. It is your call.--Die4Dixie (talk) 18:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- I have again removed the Heresy tag from the Emerging Church article. There is no warrant to add it as a category. EVERY religious movement within Christianity can be classified 'heresy' by another movement. Just because Google searches can link the two (particularly since most of the sources are Reformed blogs) is no justification. The onus of proof is on you to demonstrate why it should be added.
- By definition, "heresy" is based on the degree (or lack) of orthodoxy of a particular belief. The emerging church is a broad category that encompasses a number of beliefs (on which there is no agreed 'set'). Now - if you want to choose a specific belief and tag it as heresy (with ample documentation), feel free to go to the page for that specific belief (ex: antinomianism) and tag it as such. However, tagging a particular movement as heresy is contrary to the definition of the word, and - without ample documentation - inflammatory.
- Please do not add this back until consensus is reached on the talk page of the article.--Lyonscc (talk) 22:05, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- You have misunderstood the see also category. It is not a tag. It does not suggest that the subject "church" is heretical, but does lead interested readers to a subject that is tangently related but not expounded upon in the article, which is, of course, the purpose of the see also listings. Please take a minute and consider reverting yourself.--Die4Dixie (talk) 22:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- I've reconsidered, and there is still no justification for reverting myself. You've provided no justification for the "relatedness" of Heresy. Its inclusion is basically a back-door route of original research. Again, you might as well tag the pages of every Christian movement as heresy, because it is rather certain that someone with a blog considers it as such. Please make your case on the talk page for the community that edits this particular page.--Lyonscc (talk) 22:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- You consider quicly, with enough time also to post to two pages. You have repeatedly mistaken category tagging with see also.--Die4Dixie (talk) 22:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- Cut/Paste/Edit works fairly quickly. In this particular case, the inclusion of a category tag is little different than "see also" - they both imply the same thing. Tell you what - go to the Calvinism page and try tagging it with "See also: Heresy". I'm certain you could find sources for the claim (and Calvinism is a set of doctrines - much closer to something that could be more logically heretical than a movement across multiple denominations). Once you're successful arguing its inclusion there, please return to this article with the same justification and the community here would more likely be receptive to such a change.--Lyonscc (talk) 22:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- I would not consider the group of authors that tend to edit this page (of which I am very infrequent editor) to "Own" it, but when a first-time editor adds information that has been discussed to some degree in the past, with no discussion, and then becomes belligerent when asked for justification and to wait for additional opinions, it is not an issue of 'ownership', but simply one of good editorship and prevention of POV-pushing.--Lyonscc (talk) 22:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- Where the belligerence? From your end, no doubt. Trying to send me to another page was uncivil. The IDIDNTHEAR that argument is pretty lame. I showed you the relatedness that you asked for.--Die4Dixie (talk) 22:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- There is no IDIDNTHEAR argument being offered, and the example to send you to "Calvinism" was to illustrate a point - not a serious suggestion (since it would work just about as well there, as here). What you cited is not justification for inclusion.
- Heresy is, by definition, tied to a doctrine, not a movement. You've been offered a solution - go to whatever doctrines you consider heresy, include documentation proving them as such, and then tag them with "see also: heresy". This tag - by definition - cannot be tagged to the ECM article.--Lyonscc (talk) 22:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- I am also going to assume good faith and beleive that you do not know that I am Orthodox Presbyterian, and haven´t seen my edits where I have clearly stated this or my old user page that clearly stated so. Were I not too, then your trying to send me to Calvinism could only be considered a personal attack.--Die4Dixie (talk) 22:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- Heresy is, by definition, tied to a doctrine, not a movement. You've been offered a solution - go to whatever doctrines you consider heresy, include documentation proving them as such, and then tag them with "see also: heresy". This tag - by definition - cannot be tagged to the ECM article.--Lyonscc (talk) 22:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
I did not know your old user page history, so my apologies - I chose "Calvinism", simply because Calvinists tend to be the most "evangelistic" in heresy-hunting on Wikipedia (and elsewhere), so the tagging of "Calvinism" with "see also: Heresy" might demonstrate the impropriety of the liberal usage of the heresy 'tag'. I am neither Armenian or Calvinist, but am from a Restoration Movement background (not the ECM), but I tend to intervene in articles that POV-push from any systematic theological viewpoint.--Lyonscc (talk) 22:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for clarifying. I of course did not want to go through the article tagging based on my personal beliefs. That some might consider some of the deviantions from orthodox protestantism ( even from Arminianism) might interest readers in the general subject of heresy. I will wait until more editors join. Please not, after your second revert, I have not attempted to reinsert, bu rather, encourage you too. This seems to be exactly what policy indicates onew should do. I will abide by concensus ( noting that it could change) so charges of POV pushing are rather hamfisted.--Die4Dixie (talk) 23:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- My apologies - your requests for revert have been much different that what I've seen in some of the "religious wars" on Wiki. The "POV-pushing" note was too inflammatory on my part. Please forgive my jump to DEFCON 4.--Lyonscc (talk) 23:03, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- If I have been intemperate, I too apoogize. I am certainly not interested in a religious war over a simple see also. Nor was it my intention to slander the movement with it. I look forward to a collegial discussion, and if others disagree with the "relatedness", I have no problem with it. Sorry for any misunderstanding( and my sticky keyboard).--Die4Dixie (talk) 23:14, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Rob Bell article
Henrybish removed your edit. I placed it back but he's determined to have blog information inserted into the article. He's threatened to "take this further." I'm assuming you're more experienced with these situations. Stand ground or let it go; what should I do? Basileias (talk) 01:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Biblica
Need a more experienced editor that me! Should this have been merged (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Biblica)? If not, can this be undone and if so, how do you do it? Basileias (talk) 17:55, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Contemplative prayer
Hello, I replaced the external link on Contemplative prayer, because I believe it to be verifiable. What is the article from New Advent lacking to qualify for WP:V? I'm a bit new to the structured part of Wikipedia, I'm afraid. Any clarification is much appreciated. Paulmnguyen (talk) 16:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Copyedit Backlog Elimination Drive
Hi Lyonscc, the Guild of Copy Editors (GOCE) invites you (via me), to help out with the GOCE September 2010 Backlog elimination drive page. No hard feelings on my part if copyediting isn't your thing, but if you'd pass the word to editors you've encountered in the past, we'd be very grateful. Cheers! -Paulmnguyen (talk) 22:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Zondervan's tie to pornography!
Alright, you got me out of a mess a while back and I think I stepped into another one. There's an editor on the Zondervan article that's determined to create a controversy section for the Pornography and Satanic connection Zondervan has. ;-) I probably made a mess of the talk page going back and forth with him. How do you do an arbitration case? If you have time or the desire, take a look at most of the sources he's using. I think I'm correct in saying most "fail." Am I wrong? Basileias (talk) 05:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- I'll take a look - sorry I've been out the past couple of weeks.--Lyonscc (talk) 05:09, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Blocked
- Be aware that this block is mainly for using an IP to continue an edit war and therefore break WP:3RR. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 02:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Lyonscc (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
This IP address isn't me - I checked the address in ARIN WHOIS, and it is located in Virginia. I am in Indiana (you should be able to check the logs and see this). Also - if you look at the time when these edits happened, I was in the process of editing other pages (and actually submitting a 3RR request). I'm in the process of discussing changes with another user, with whom an Admin intervened in the 3RR matter. Also, if you check my IP address from my edits, it should show I'm not a sockpuppet! Lyonscc (talk) 02:51, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Accept reason:
See below. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 03:31, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Lyonscc (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I just did more looking, and geolocate shows that the IP address is in Cincinnati. I am in Indianapolis, and not at all in the geolocation area (which is 90-100 miles from here). The anon IP cannot be me. Lyonscc (talk) 03:09, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Accept reason:
I'm still skeptical of it, but there's another admin involved in the article and discussion is going on, so let's see where this leads. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 03:26, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
I was unblocked (as above), but still cannot edit. I've cleared my cache, and still nothing.
- Lyonscc (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
- 24.223.133.164 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
Block message:
Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Lyonscc". The reason given for Lyonscc's block is: "Abusing multiple accounts: Please see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lyonsc
- Blocking administrator: HelloAnnyong (talk • blocks)
Accept reason: It looks like HelloAnnyong forgot to clear the IP-autoblock that accompanies blocks on usernames (the two blocks always occur together, but must be unblocked seperately). I have lifted the IP block as well; you should be free to edit. If you still are having problems, let us know. Jayron32 03:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Children's Museum backstage pass
The Children's Museum Backstage Pass! - You are invited! | |
---|---|
The Children's Museum of Indianapolis is hosting its second Backstage Pass and its first Edit-a-Thon on Saturday, August 20. The museum is opening its doors to Wikipedians interested in learning about the museum's collection, taking them on a tour of the vast collection before spending the afternoon working with curators to improve articles relating to the Caplan Collection of folk toys and Creative Playthings objects. Please sign up on the event page if you can attend, and if you'd like to participate virtually you can sign up on the Edit-a-Thon page. ---LoriLee (talk) 15:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC) |
Your Censorship and Edit Warring of the Joel Osteen Page
It is always a wonderful thing when a censor or oppressor is forced to show their hand. It is an even better day when an agenda is exposed. You are a fraud, and that has been exposed through the "Joel Osteen Wikipedia Watch Group" that has formed as a direct result of your censorship control of Osteen's page for more than three years. The top of Wikipedia wonders why people don't want to edit anymore, as you and one or two others gang up to stifle outside editors. (Clubhrt (talk) 06:54, 6 September 2011 (UTC))