Fides Viva
Hope you enjoy contributing to Wikipedia. Be bold in editing pages. Here are some links that you might find useful:
- Try the Tutorial. If you have less time, try Wikipedia:How to edit a page.
- To sign your posts (on talk pages, Articles for deletion page etc.) use ~~~~ (four tildes). This will insert your name and timestamp. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes).
- You can experiment in the test area.
- You can get help at the Help Desk
- Some other pages that will help you know more about Wikipedia: Manual of Style and Wikipedia:Five pillars, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia:How to write a great article
I hope you stick around and keep contributing to Wikipedia. Drop us a note at Wikipedia:New user log.
Re:Hi and help!
editHi! The person who deleted your edits has already been warned (See: User talk:68.121.254.253). If he/she continues to bug you, you can always report the matter at Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress and the IP user will be banned. utcursch | talk 05:33, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
- Thankyou for your reply. That helps me. I wasn't sure what to do or where/whom to turn to. I will keep an eye on it. Fides Viva 06:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
The Willow Creek Article
editI don't really want to take sides, but I stand by the NPOV tag. Perhaps it should have been a "This article is a battlefield" tag. I myself have introduced very little content, but rather have been trying to tone down content introduced by people on either side of the argument. I can feel the sparks, and I feel like a moderator. I don't really want this role, as it can be quite emotionally taxing. However, the Willow Creek article is the only one on my watchlist, precisely because it seems to need constant moderation. Rather than hacking away strong viewpoints, try to bring the two sides into balance with each other.
In reference to the "Quality" tag, I think that the article is largely a set of disparate parts. It needs rewriting to tie the parts together, extensive restructuring and editing to unify the voice. Also, strong POV along the lines of a polemic rant, though fortunately confined mostly to the talk page, is a problem from BOTH SIDES. Please please PLEASE be civil; I don't want to see blood on this article. --John Hupp 23:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Response to the Mediation
editFides Viva, This is concerning the Willow Creek article. I posted it here and also on that talk page.
I asked for a mediator from the Mediation Cabal and Steven McCrary responded with this following: "Mediator response: Greetings, These criticisms are from legitimate sources, therefore they should not be removed. However, I agree that the section is overbearing, messy, long, and needs cleanup, but not removal. Put the criticism back in, tone it down, and clean it up. It may be necessary to move much of it to its own page."
- Here are the changes which I have made based on this. I really do hope that this gives a NPOV to the article and gives both sides of the argument an acceptable solution. Steven reccomended cleaning up and toning down of the criticism. I have done so. I also, limited the links to only ones which specifically mention Willow Creek.
- Steven reccomended that it "may be necessary to move much of it to its own page." I have done so. It seems that much of the criticism is for not just Willow Creek, but also, Bill Hybels, A Purpose Driven Life, Saddleback Church, and several other issues surrounding megachurches. for that reason, I have created a page called Criticisms of Mega Churches This is essentially the main body of criticism from the Willow Creek article. I have linked to this new page in the "See Also" section of the Willow Creek Article, as well as the Megachurch article. The Criticisms of Mega Churches article still needs to be cleaned up significantly, but it is off to a good start.
I sincerely apologize if any of my remarks on this talk page have been inflamatory in anyway. I hope we can all come to a happy medium!
I saw that it is marked for deletion
editI think the best way to stop the Criticisms of Mega Churches from being deleted, is probably to change it from links and quotes to more of an encyclopedia article, which is cleaner and has more structure. That is probably why User:Antaeus Feldspar marked it for deletion. right now it certainly has a wealth of information which can be found at other websites, but it does not have a lot of content on the actual page. I hope that you will have an opportunity to make improvements
I am glad we could work that out, and I would be happy to work out other changes with you on the Willow Creek page as well. Wikipedia:Five_pillars
--Mshuflin 11:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
"I hope that you will have an opportunity to make improvements" You are so much better a writer than me I hope you can do it? I actually like the way you write. A pleasure to read. I left school when I was fourteen and have been trying to catch up ever since even though I am well over on my way to 100 so YOU have to respect your elder! :) As long as you are not writing Adverts for these false teachers and their organizations, instead writing with a netural point of view, I'd be most happy. I mean it is ok to tell folks who these organizations are and who the people who run them are, sticking to facts and so forth. I am not saying that they are totally destitute in truth telling but it is the leaven they mix in that bothers me and I think Wiki readers need to know all the facts and figures or links to articles they can study themselves and then they can decide for themselves if they are truth tellers or just men pleasers, tickling peoples ears. Scratching people where they itch. I am not a very good writer so I find it difficult to write essays or articles. I get too passionate and start veering off topic and end up writing screeds of stuff that is probably a bit too heated. I want to shine more light than heat. Hard going for me. Thankyou for your pleasent nice attitude, far better than mine. Please be patient with me. :) Fides Viva 12:44, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
You really made my day...
edit...when I read your comments on the Dave Hunt discussion page. You really can't beat a bit of old-fashioned, pulpit-thumping Christian vitriol. xxx IronButterfly 13:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
You're welcome. :) Fides Viva 23:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Dave Hunt discussion
editI removed much of your discussion on the Dave Hunt article. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Talk pages are for dicussing the development of the article, not to engage in debates. Also, some of the content you mentioned may violate the policy on Biographies of living persons. Please be more careful in future discussions. In the meantime, I would appreciate your future contributions to Wikipedia. —Cswrye 15:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)