Talk:University Bible Fellowship

NPOV tags removed
I removed the POV and COI tags from 2016 on this article after a Requests for comment, restructuring the article to remove the Controversy section and undue negative introduction using WP:NOCRIT, and after reviewing WikiAdmin guidance from the past 10 years. I made these bold edits to move the article toward neutrality due to the risk posed by the repeated section blanking and recent (and recurring) self-promotion by Wikipedia:Single-purpose accounts and Sockpuppetry here. Bkarcher (talk) 09:36, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You are disrupting this article and talk page by removing dogmatically.

@Bkarcher Your behaviour of removing the tags is reported to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents here. Please go there to make whatever comments you wish to Dlee612 (talk) 17:57, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You opened this section after you have removed the tags at Revision as of 15:21, February 22, 2021 without any discussion and consensus even though you have a COI so it is a violation of Tagging_pages_for_problems. I don't agree with your removing the tags so asked you to put it back but you ignored and opened this talk section. Please put it back and ask any editors without a COI.
 * You removed the discussion between you and me and moved to my talk page without any consensus. Dlee612 (talk) 00:33, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Why is there no history of a RfC on this talk page? —C.Fred (talk) 17:59, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * My RfC is here. Legobot removed the expired tag. Bkarcher (talk) 18:31, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I was looking for a closed tag and didn't see it, and I missed the subject line. —C.Fred (talk) 19:08, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

@Dlee612 So you want me to comment on the Wikipedia ANI board? I see no reason to do such a thing. I am certain the admins can handle the situation. Bkarcher (talk) 02:02, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Bkarcher are you trolling? I thought you know what to do. When you say you see no reason to do such a thing, are you saying I reported it with no reason? I feel like that you are going to continue to do this kind of violation and disruptive editing. I don't know what you are certain about the admins' action but I believe that your behaviour should be warned and discouraged. If it is resolved without any warning or else, it will be very disappointing and frustrating. I am afraid that it can give a wrong signal to people. They may think "Oh, I can remove tags even if I have a COI without any consensus. I can dogmatically move talks from article's talk page to user's talk page without asking."
 * What are you waiting for the admins to do? You yourself can resolve this problem. You know what / how to do. 1) revert it 2) open up a RfC 3) discuss to have consensus. You are supposed to apologize for your dogmatic behaviour. But I've learned that you won't. So I don't expect. But please do 1), 2) and 3) if you really want to resolve this issue. Otherwise, do not ask me again and please go there to make whatever comments you want. Dlee612 (talk) 03:49, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Response

Discussion is not the only way to reach consensus. Starting in May 2020, I followed the RfC advice given and applied other methods to reach consensus. Then in January 2021, I  proposed my changes and you (Dlee612) agreed with the direction I proposed. I made numerous, incremental edits, taking into account some of the suggestions in this talk page. My primary edit is to blend the Beliefs section into the article and to revamp the Controversies section into a Reactions section. After this, I removed the 2 tags on this article and then explained my reasons. My COI is 10 years old but I have left it open since it could be argued that I am still too close to the subject of this article. My edits are intended to be made with good faith, as evidenced by including the partnership reference, moving the heavy negative statement out of the introduction, adding a positive reference, and accepting the disagreement with the word "amassed". I believe these edits are in good faith using the advised RfC guideline of WP:NOCRIT. Bkarcher (talk) 11:40, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Your response is mixed with incorrect information.
 * You removed the tags on Feb. 22 and opened this talk Feb. 26 after I pointed out your wrong behaviour.
 * You claimed you accepted the disagreement with the word "amassed" but you didn't. You had insisted that "amassed" and "acquired" were not different and kept using "acquired" even though I suggested the word "reported" You showed your disagreement . So it is false for you to accept the disagreement. It was resolved by C.Fred not by your agreement.
 * I don't feel you did in good faith because you are claiming I am a SPA and sockpuppetry without any basis. Atually, I don't see any other purpose from your account (Bkarcher) other than editing this article. And also you insulted me saying "You(Dlee612) don't understand English" Actually you misunderstood over what I said. It was not my English problem. I was hurt by your insulting. Your wording is rude and aggressive. It doesn't help to have healthy and constructive discussions. Please keep in mind that I also made and will make changes in good faith. Please be polite. Dlee612 (talk) 03:29, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Dlee612 Your ANI complaint against me expired because no Admin saw fit to take up your charge. If you have constructive edits to make to this article, then make them. Wikipedia is not a social media site for the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Drama#What_is_Drama? drama you are inciting]. Bkarcher (talk) 10:37, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Bkarcher Should I say "congrats"? You were supposed to make comments to the ANI board not here instead of checking every day when it would be expired. I hope it was not your strategy. I am working on constructive edits but busy with editing other articles. It takes time to prepare for and verify sources because I am doing it in my free time.
 * It is really interesting to see your strong POV on editing and comments. How do you know that the Admins didn't see fit to take up? Did they tell you? Are there any friends in the group of admins? Or do you have ability to read people's thoughts? Are you saying the Admins allowed your violation? How do you know I wanted to see the drama? Speaking of the drama, if I really wanted to see it, I would've done as you did so that it was not auto-archived. 1) moved this talk to the ANI board without asking you 2) ask my friends to make comments. Unfortunately, I don't have such friends. If I really wanted to see it, I didn't want to agree with your proposal. It shows my good faith toward your edits. I recommend you to stop being suspicious of edits and comments others make. It will be helpful constructive discussions and edits. Dlee612 (talk) 02:07, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Dlee612, you said in this talk page - "Thanks for your proposal. I think we can start editing..." and on my talk page - "It was I who agreed with your proposed NPOV article. Dlee612 (talk) 06:57, 27 February 2021 (UTC)" So let's edit instead of complaining endlessly. Bkarcher (talk) 13:10, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Bkarcher Yes, let's edit instead of attacking baselessly. You are again insisting I complained. But I discussed and criticized your dogmatic behaviour. Please have good faith and stop attacking others uselessly. Dlee612 (talk) 05:32, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Dlee612 You also thanked me for the edits to the History section. So I'm confused. On one hand, you agree with my proposal and thank me for my edits. On the other hand, you report me to the ANI board and repeat the same baseless complaints over and over. Bkarcher (talk) 16:06, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I thanked you for your time and effort to make the draft. I guess you are confused because you misunderstood I agreed with all the contents in your proposal. But what I said is "We can start editing to make this article more balanced following NPOV." So I started editing but we've got different opinions about the word "amassed" / "acquired" We were supposed to have discussion in good faith but you repeated baseless attack and underestimating like below.
 * You insisted I've recruited SPA accounts to agree with me and incited edit wars in order to get your account banned at this talk
 * You insisted I didn't understand English at here.
 * You insisted I incited a drama at here
 * You referred me as a SPA and sockpuppetry at here
 * What are your bases for the above insistence? They are all based on your baseless POV.
 * Regarding ANI report, I made it because you with a COI removed NPOV tags without consensus. I asked you several times to revert but you refused insisting there was no problem(C.Fred said it is bad). That's why I reported. It has nothing to do with your proposal and my agreement on it. Are you still confused? As you suggested, let's edit the article instead of wasting our precious time due to this kind of arguments. Dlee612 (talk) 05:32, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

@ Dlee612, thank you for your comments in the financial section. I do not have any objections and sorry I answered your questions this late. Thank you.Holynation78 (talk)Holynation78 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:22, 1 May 2021 (UTC)