Talk:Mark Pivarunas

Untitled

In reading this article I was amazed at the skill with which Mark Pivarunas' true background was avoided. Welcome to anyone who cares to get into the issue of documentation/verification, because there's a wealth of it out there.

To semper fi - I know you are the one editing this article, so much for your "covert operations". Just for your info, the info you are adding is not documented and you could be sued for libel. If you want it added, you need to use credible 3rd hand sources and add them properly. If not, leave the article alone!

George Wagner 06 06 06

George, I do loving playing with your enlarged head. Aside from that, Markie would be terrified at the can of worms you are opening. Keep it up, and you are going to find exactly where this faker's combat boots have been, what churches he has stolen from (rescuing?), and why he carried a .357 magnum around in his briefcase. The transcripts are available. Do you want to see your favorite "bishop" exposed?

You have yet to prove anything, and, I seriously doubt that you can. Next, I have a great idea as to who you are and I will know for shure in a few days. You talk the talk, but you have nothing behind your sail. All the changes that you made are not cited and will be deleted. George Wagner 16 Jun 06

I removed the most biased statements. The encyclopdia should not attribute motivations to people. Gimmetrow 20:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Gimmetrow : It seems I am in a battle with this person who refuses to state his name and uses IP addresses. I have traced them to one computer and I feel I know the person. He has yet to prove any of his accusations or cite anything that he adds. I just removed a few statements that are not true and have no citing to back them up. I would like to know who added the template on the right of the article about not being affiliated to a diocese. If this is going to be added to Mark Pivarunas then it must be added to Schuckardt and any other bishop without papal mandate. What do you think. George Wagner 16 June 06

I added it to this page and a few others, including Schuckardt, as an experiment to get some feedback. The *only* feedback I got was at the Schuckardt page, where three anons objected rather quickly, so I removed it from all the test pages but this one for the sake of comments. If you have any comment about wording, etc. it's welcome. I also will not object if you remove it from this page. Gimmetrow 20:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Gimmetrow : I feel it should be removed if it is not in the other articles. This is just to be consistant with all bishops w/o papal mandate. If it is going to be added then keep it. George Wagner 17JUN06

The idea that Bishop Pivarunas is not "notable" enough for Wikipedia is simply ludicrous and laughable. Go ahead and delete this article. The only thing you will be doing is showing how hypocritical is Wikipedia. I could show you 1000 articles about people on Wikipedia that are 1/10 as notable as Bishop Pivarunas. The only problem is that these people, many of them the type of social media or open source favorites of the Wikipedia fanboy editors, are highly admired by the insignificant little band of Wikipedia fascist editors. It's not about Bishop Pivarunas being notable or not. To Wikipedians its about being cool or not. Certainly there is nothing cool today about Traditional Catholicism. So, go for it. Bishop Pivarunas' traditional Catholicism will be around long after Wikipedia is no longer "notable". Ha. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.135.186.50 (talk) 01:55, 10 April 2012 (UTC)