Talk:Mariners Church

Film company

While possibly not notable enough for its own article, i have added information on the film I Am, which was previously an article, now userfied at User:Stefanhajek/I Am (2010 film). this film was produced in strong connection with a pastor at this church. for the record, i have absolutely no affiliation with this church, or the film, but i wanted to make sure that information that passed notability for at least an article section got added at some point. this is as much as i think it may deserve. others may differ. i probably wont weigh in on it again, this was in the interest of meta-ecumenicalism (perhaps Inclusivism), though i know that these types of churches are very strict exclusivists and would reject out of hand any efforts in the direction of my aforementioned sentiment. too bad, the world has enough suffering without all the various religions causing more in the name of their god(s).(mercurywoodrose)108.94.2.172 (talk) 02:00, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Mariners Church. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100214160355/http://www.marinerschurch.org/pages/history.html to http://www.marinerschurch.org/pages/history.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100214160355/http://www.marinerschurch.org/pages/history.html to http://www.marinerschurch.org/pages/history.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141006110300/http://www.marinerschurch.org/mariners-what-we-believe/ to http://www.marinerschurch.org/mariners-what-we-believe/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071113145717/http://www.marinerschurch.org/pages/starthere.html to http://www.marinerschurch.org/pages/starthere.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071012163926/http://marinerschurch.org/pages/leadership.html to http://www.marinerschurch.org/pages/leadership.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121114131800/http://www.experienceliquid.com/t-s_our_story.aspx?skinid=3&V=6 to http://www.experienceliquid.com/t-s_our_story.aspx?skinid=3&V=6
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121113142828/http://www.experienceliquid.com/default.aspx?skinid=1 to http://www.experienceliquid.com/default.aspx?skinid=1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120313141901/http://www.iamthemovie.com/i_am_faq.html to http://www.iamthemovie.com/i_am_faq.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:55, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

blanking of community service section

User Avatar317 blanked the entire section on community service with the comment that "Removed UNSOURCED and poorly sourced: "lareviewofbooks.org" is NOT a Reliable Source. Please see: WP:RS." I've reverted the edit. There is nothing wrong with the source, nor do I see any reason to doubt that the statements made in that section are true. Nothing in WP:RS seems relevant. Blanking the entire section is not constructive.--Fashionslide (talk) 14:39, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

User Avatar317 has reverted. I've re-reverted. Avatar317, please engage in constructive discussion on the talk page. Please do not blank entire sections heedlessly on such a flimsy basis.--Fashionslide (talk) 01:20, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

I've left a message on Avatar317's talk page inviting them to participate in the talk page and requesting that they not blank entire sections.--Fashionslide (talk) 01:22, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Statements/sections with poor sourcing should be deleted, as I said in my edit summaries. As I have said repeatedly now, you need to read Wikipedia's policies on Reliable Sources. WP:RS. Wikipedia is not the place for alternative facts or misinformation. Please read WP:V, as well as the other policies I have pointed you to in my edit summaries.---Avatar317^(talk) 22:48, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

You have repeatedly blanked the entire section, which describes a variety of activities and has multiple references. This is very rude and destructive behavior. There is nothing wrong with the LA Review of Books as a source, nor is there anything in any information you've provided that would give any basis for claiming that it isn't a reliable source. I'm mystified by your statement that "Wikipedia is not the place for alternative facts or misinformation." What in the world is your reason to taking such strong exception to the totally vanilla description in this section of a church's community activities? --Fashionslide (talk) 14:42, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I've posted here about this dispute: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Repeated_blanking_of_a_section_in_Mariners_Church,_with_claims_that_LA_Review_of_Books_is_not_OK_as_a_source --Fashionslide (talk) 14:57, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

The Churches own website is not an RS.Slatersteven (talk)

Edited for updated content, reverted?

Hello friends! I've updated a bunch of information here with sources, including updated staff and stats. However, this is continually being reverted by Avatar317.

@Avatar317, can you explain these reversions? The data reflected her is accurate and sourced. Dougblackjr (talk) 10:35, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

So why did you lie on your edit summary to hide the fact that you removed three paragraphs of SOURCED: "===Social and political controversies==="? ---Avatar317^(talk) 00:38, 11 October 2022 (UTC)