User talk:ArturoDan

Mark Driscoll article
ArturoDan - I've added a discussion on Driscoll's talk page here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mark_Driscoll#Mars_Hill_.22Shunning.22_Incident.28s.29_in_early_2012 if you want to discuss the "shunning" incident(s) and whether they belong on Driscoll's page.--Lyonscc (talk) 21:10, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or  located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 00:22, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

March 2012
Welcome to Wikipedia. Please be aware of Wikipedia's policy that biographical information about living persons must not include unsupported or inaccurate statements. Whenever you add possibly controversial statements about a living person to an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did to Mark Driscoll, you must include proper sources. If you don't know how to cite a source, you may want to read Referencing for beginners for guidelines. Thank you. Basileias (talk) 04:04, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm confused. I cited Driscoll's own sermon from the website of the network of which he is president.  This is consistent with the guidelines at the Verifiability page.  "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the requirement in the case of self-published sources that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

the material is not unduly self-serving; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source; there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; the article is not based primarily on such sources."

I used this as a source about his own beliefs. ArturoDan (talk) 05:33, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * There is also a question of notability to be considered. Adding in items you believe are "controversial" that are not part of a broader story from verifiable third-party sources is not encyclopedic.  Also, be aware that you are currently probably in violation of the  Three Revert Rule on the Driscoll-related articles, which can get you blocked from editing Wikipedia.--Lyonscc (talk) 12:20, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I didn't violate the Three Revert Rule.  I deliberately did not undo the changes made by others but edited it anew to try to better fit the concerns.  Basileias deleted my last edit about Driscoll's statement in Real Marriage concerning his former misogynous statements, saying it was unsourced.  But that is blatantly untrue. It was correctly documented from a published work.ArturoDan (talk) 14:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Just be aware that changing the same section w/ minor variations can be construed as 3RR violations. That's all I was getting at. --Lyonscc (talk) 15:43, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. It was helpful to read through that, and I understand your concern.  ArturoDan (talk) 18:21, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I removed the statement for the following reasons. You are a brand new account created on 13 March 2012 at 05:53. Your purpose so far has been to insert controversial statements for one person. You also have made erroneous statements about reverts and removals raising the question of accuracy of what you do. I cannot immediately verify the statement from the book you are claiming it is from. If you are new to Wikipedia, I would recommend starting in an area that is NOT controversy with current living persons. Basileias (talk) 17:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I am a brand new account who decided to engage after reading the Driscoll page and noting the incomplete representation of him especially in light of his newly released, best selling book which has generated many news articles. You are not allowed to police me for my motives when I am sourcing relevant content correctly from a neutral point of view.  The fact that you don't happen to have the book to double check my sources is irrelevant.  Should I go back through your history of edits on various pages and delete your edits if I don't personally own the book you sourced? Of course not! And I take issue with your comment that I've made "erroneous statements about reverts and removals." While I admit I am learning the lingo and have to correct myself at times, I have not misrepresented the edits I've made. ArturoDan (talk) 18:21, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * If you look through the history of my edits, you will find I only use sources others can easily and readily verify Basileias (talk) 20:05, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Generally, my primary editing in Wikipedia is in the maintenance if Biographies of Living Persons, which generally have a higher standard of  verifiability and special rules around them, as to notability, etc. In general, sources are preferred that are electronically verifiable without a subscription/purchase, especially if they deal with controversial subjects on BLP's. One man's controversy is another man's no-big-deal, and it is typically expected that a controversial topic requires some significant third-party-media attention to be considered as notable in a BLP. Often, new editors are tripped up in this when they wish to insert additional controversies that often depend on "connecting the dots", which violates the spirit of one of the key Wikipedia precepts of No Original Research. In this particular case, it seems like you are desiring to add to an existing controversy documented on the page with original research connecting the Haggard comments to Driscoll's personal life. It is possible that such a connection is made in his book, but until it appears in free, electronic media, it seems tertiary enough, IMO, that is escapes notability, in terms of whether it is encyclopedic or not.--Lyonscc (talk) 20:54, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * He says it online here. At the 17-18 minute mark.  http://marshill.com/media/real-marriage/new-marriage-same-spouse I should edit my addition to say "Driscoll revealed in his 2012 book, Real Marriage, that he was sexually frustrated with his own wife during the time he made comments about Ted Haggard and apologized generally for 'chauvinistic' statements he had made during that time."  I previously used the word misogynist.  Driscoll uses the word chauvinist.   ArturoDan (talk) 05:40, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, I believe I understand Basileias' concern that many first-time editors who choose controversial subjects in BLP's fall into the category of Tendentious Editors, wgi appear (and disappear) frequently in the life of BLP's of prominent, sometimes controversial, individuals. In such cases, it bolsters one's credibility to have a variety of pages you regularly edit, without a consistent theme of adding controversial subject matter. This is just my $0.02, not an accusation.--Lyonscc (talk) 21:00, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I understand your point.  I'm not sure what is controversial about the Haggard addition since Driscoll is saying this both in his book and sermons. It doesn't have to fall right under the Haggard quote, but it seems highly relevant that a pastor with documented statements that generated outcries from various groups is now admitting that there was basis to their outcries, and doing it all in a NY Times bestselling book. ArturoDan (talk) 05:40, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Real Marriage for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Real Marriage is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Real Marriage until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.