User talk:1TruthTracker
I am not trying to start a edit war with you, which is why I have tried to maintain most of your additions. I don't believe some of your additions are encyclopedic or can be verifiably sourced either, but I have tried to work them in, for now, and given you the opportunity to find proper citations. The sourcing you have tried to use thus far does not meet Wikipedia guidelines. Please review WP:VER and WP:RS
Thank You, Bg357 (talk) 05:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh, but I believe you are. Another person cited a newspaper and you deleted that, yet you cited a newspaper for what only you wanted to add. Why? Asking Elkevbo what to do about helping you get rid of me, isn't going to help. I'm asking for Travellingcari's knowledge as to whether or not she/he knows how else to present hard copies of evidence. They agree that the county reference # is sufficient. These are legal documents, and can't be made to just disappear. These citations do follow Wikipedia's rules, so leave them alone, or it is obvious that you are engaging in an editing war and vandalism.
- I removed an improperly placed sourcing citation to a Spokesman Review article that was already properly sourced in the reference list. I noted in the edit summary that I had deleted a duplicate reference. If your interested in the truth, you can see for yourself; I removed this citation (http://www.autoreviewonline.com/tools/story_pf.asp?ID=195288) because this citation (http://www.spokesmanreview.com/breaking/story.asp?ID=10334) was already in the ref list. They are different links to the same article. Bg357 (talk) 13:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Your edit on March 13 @ 4:11 removed more than just your own duplicate citation from the Spokesman Review. You removed paragraphs including 76.182.159.122 adding a reference to an article in the CDA Press from July 25, 2003. I did see the truth for myself and the history log doesn't lie.
- The edit you originally brought up occurred on March 11 @ 22:00, I didn't even edit the page on March 13th! The history logs don't lie but they can be confusing to the uninitiated.
There were no edits to Real Life Ministries on March 11 @ 22:00. The last edit was March 11 @ 18:59 by Smackbot. You edited it March 11 @ 4:53. You DID make TWO edits on March 13th, one at 4:11 and one at 4:57!
Regarding these last references that I removed, they are not current. The reports were made off of information from the year before (ie: 2007 was for info received for 2006 attendence); and they were given to them by Real Life Ministries themselves. How do you know that the attendence for 2007 and the first 3 months of 2008 went up? It could have gone down. If you look at the last 5 years of CDA Press and Spokesman Review articles, reports from various magazine articles, claims from the church's own website, CDF's articles, bulletins from the church, and Jim's book, none of the numbers match up and they are all different to a large degree. At first the church claimed to have grown to 1,600 their first year. It was actually approx. 400 (as seen on the CDF website). They claimed on their website that they averaged 8,000 in attendance with 12,000 on Easter of '07. Now they've changed that down to 7,000. Even BG357 has changed the numbers up and down several times. They have claimed to have 8,000 in attendance in a city of 18,000 people (Post Falls). Post Falls actually has a population of 33,009 ('07 census). And people attend RLM from more than just the town of Post Falls. People from Coeur d'Alene, Spirit Lake, Athol, Hayden, Hayden Lake, Dalton Gardens, Rathdrum, Twin Lakes, Harrison, Liberty Lake, Spokane Valley and Spokane attend RLM. All of the cities added together are more than 300,000! RLM also, on their website, claims to have the 124 acres paid for in full. According to the county records that claim is not substantiated in the least. There are many more examples, but I think this shows the consistantly inflated claims of RLM. I think that the article is still lacking alot of information from a NPOV and in a true substantiated form. However, in it's simplist current condition it is fine for now. I don't think that the preposition "With their congregation continuing to grow", detracts from the fact that they bought another piece of property and obtaining yet another mortgage. I also don't think that I am being unreasonable with my arguments. I would like to know honestly how BG357 is associated with the church; and what his/her reasoning is for trying to have this article "speedily deleted", and continuing to remove encyclopedic content from this article? I live in the area of the church and read the newspapers here everyday. I have noticed how big and often-talked-about this subject is here. That's how I notice all of the inconsistant claims of the church. I do have a NPOV concerning this article and want to see this article with true content. Not written with biased claims in one direction or the other. Thank you.
Verifiable Continued Growth[edit]
Please stop removing verifiably sourced content from this article, like you did here. If you feel that the sourcing citations are inadequate, you are incouraged to share your opinions on the talk page. Bg357 (talk) 05:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
You should take your own advice and stop posting things on the article; and you are encouraged to share your opinions on the talk page. Obviously you are biased. Again I will ask what is your affiliation with RLM ministries? Or are you just obsessed with this article? It's one or the other.
SPECULATION IS NOT ALLOWED
You sure seem to hold yourself high on a pedestal above everyone else here (referring to yourself as the only productive member of the Wikipedia community that edits RLM). You seem pretty biased, and seem to think that you are above the editing rules because you are the one who created this article. I'm curious, why did you delete, in RLM's History, your previous statement, "When the church's expansion plans were announced in a local newspaper there was some concern regarding the financial accountability of the church. In an effort to resolve any controversy, the church leadership has solicited input from their members about expansion plans and have also made financial statements available to anyone who would like to review them. The church is reportedly also seeking accreditation with the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability to further achieve financial transparency."? Please, stop adding unverifiable content to this article, like you do. And remember, if you feel that the sourcing citations are adequate, you are encouraged to share your opinions on the talk page.
- If you would actually read what I have posted, instead of continuing to misconstrue & misquote, you would find that I made NO statement that I was "the ONLY productive member" editing the RLM article, I said that "as a productive member of the Wikipedia community, I also edit other articles" Your contribution history indicates that you are the one who seems to be "obssessed"(to use your term) with this article.Bg357 (talk) 19:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Refactored comment[edit]
Hi truth, just giving you a heads up that all I did here was remove the italics, which made it impossible to read clearly TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 17:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I was just trying to make it different without "bolding it" to make it stand out from the other postings.