User talk:Darrenss/Archive 1

discussions
You said --- "I am trying to open discussions about this and am happy to have someone else look over it. Please note user: Potters Pouse changed it again.  I have never made any slanderous comments to the said user, there is a difference between personal attacks and constuctive criticism that people can benifit from.  I have commented already to user: Potters House on the discussion of his homepage and have not made any slanderous remarks and I am not interested in slandering the user or the Potter's House Christian Fellowship but acurately informing the public as to the nature of the criticism of the church and providing current up-to-date information for people to follow up on if they so desired. user:darrenss 14:20 February 2007"


 * You got me. I was discussing this pleasantly with him. I thought he understood the discussion pages both user and article are for, well 'Discussing' not user pages. This mediation he keeps citing doesn't at all resolve the issue and nothing at all is said about the links on your own user page. He says slanderous statments were made about him. A simple thing to do is take it to wiki again lay it out both of you. Though one thing has piqued my interest he keeps saying the links are about him directly. If the links are ok for the article just poor quality and he is mentioned in the links would that not be a conflict of interest. Anyway you guys work it out I am staying NPOV on this. Just enforcing wiki policy as a regular editor. --Xiahou 03:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid Nick has confused personal attacks with providing facts and support on the potters house. Please go to the firstplumbline and see it has nothing to do with personal attacks on the user but current up-to-date information reports the facts on the concerns the public and ex-members have about the Potters House church. Ths is no trick I'm proposing just support and help for the general public that they can go to and see what the issues are themselves. The user is dominating the information and not proving the actual facts on the subject. Yes I edited the potters house page and the user reverted it, so I left it until I could get further advice. However the user deleted my homepage claiming the links I had were all poor and slanderous. I say again not just for my page but for the Potters House acticle that the truth of the current status of the objections to the church should be told not a one sided bias and links should be given that are current with good research and resources that people can benifit from. The user will not allow that. I call for anyone to advise on this, maybe I wasn't here when the older discussions were made but I am now and I state for the record that the user user:Potters House is purposely with holding information to prevent informing the public of the current status of the situation. I know myself for I atended the church for almost 5 years and left in Dec 2005, so I know whats it all about personally.user:darrenss 15:25 February 2007

I have also provided some links on my user page that offer an alternitive view to the links you posted on your userpage. You may wish to see them, the links are: Thanks Potters house 07:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep your links off my user page please. I'll give you 2 days to remove them. Delete them or I will. The discussion is at the potters house page not here. Make your case over there. Oh and if you link http://www.waymanmitchell.com/Critics.htm again I will delete it on site. This is nothing but your own slanderous accusations without any real proof. And keep your yahoo groups link off as well, I can't believe people would be misled to think your own groups have any actual valid facts that are varifiable. Just remember Nick there are 2 sides to every arguement and so far I've let you off the hook. Be warned, I'm being nice but don't push your luck.Darrenss 08:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Please note placed a list of links here that I deleted  They serve no purpose placing them on my talk page and furthermore some of the links are to webpages he himself has authored which I am offended by and rather not list them here. Please go to Potters house to find those links. Furthermore the discusson as previously mentioned is on the Potter's House Christian Fellowship discussion page, so please in future do not place lists of links here that you know I consider to be inappropriate. ThanksDarrenss 00:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Charisma Magazine link
You may be interested in this link:. I've also amended the articles on Wayman Mitchell and Potter's House accordingly. --One Salient Oversight 06:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

BTW, check out the problems I've had in the past with the PH. And I'm not even one of them. 

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism and immediately reverted. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you.

You are in danger of violating the three revert rule. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. Potters house 07:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern, I'll say the same for you as well.Darrenss 07:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Nick you are the one who will not co-operate. The whole history of the potters house article is you fighting with every wikipedia editor around. Do not make threats against me, you are in the wrong sir and harrassing me will not help your cause.Darrenss 19:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Previous cases
On the User Page you spoke of previous cases, the first is not me and I was not involved. I may have edited during that time but I was not a regular wikipedian then.

Ross' friends had a double standard, hence the reason I object to other "poor quality links" being added. Basically, they hate anything against Ross, but they didn't mind any other link even those of poorer quality. But they were amazed when they discovered that the link they were trying to permit was also made by Neil Taylor, a former Fellowship pastor and close friend of mine. So basically the only reason for the objection of the Ross link was that it was against Ross, it had nothing to do with quality, that was just an excuse to get the link removed. I think that an admin should look at the links and decide what is to reamain, otherwise we will be arguing forever. Potters house 07:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Nick there is nothing to worry about, I'm simply reviewing past history for present knowledge. Nothing against you or anybody else. I'll be standing on the backs of others so to speak, covering previous topics for current circumstances. Don't stress, I want to go over as much as I can. If you have any other problems (cases/debates on either of these articles with other editors) you can point them out so I can go over them. I just like to get my facts right and research the whole story from the beginning. Thats the best way I think is to get a fresh perspective. I've also gone over much of the previous edits on the Potters House article and who's been involved to get a picture of how its evolved so to speak. Remember when the article was started I was still in the Potters House so I would not of even been aware of it at that stage. Nothing to worry about I just like to be prepared. Also I've been going over the wikipedia policies as time permits. Just take a breath, step back and we'll get to it soon. I'll be pretty busy over the next 2 weeks but I would suggest to you to go over the material and policies as well, it might help. Take it slow because there is alot of issues that need to be addressed so much as I can see. The point is to get the article properly sourced and verified, in NPOV and have appropriate links that we can agree upon. Godbless Darrenss 07:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Amen Potters house 11:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandelism to home and talk pages
Edits can only be made to user pages that meet wikipedia's policies. If there is a problem anyone would have with page content they are required to discuss it with the user first. I am happy to discuss any issues one would have with the content of my user page but you cannot go ahead and edit it, that is vandelism. Darrenss 06:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe there is a good reason why you were banned Nick because you are a jerk and show no respect for others and have no regard for wikipedia policy. Play by the rules and everyone will be happy at the end of the day.Darrenss 11:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Hows the calvinsitic doctrines treating you? 124.183.0.50 11:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Relaxing and free without potters house overlords and dictators dominating my time, energy and beliefs. The christian life is sweet when a person can simply rest in the sovereign grace of God. But of course you don't know what I mean do you Nick since you have to "keep" yourself saved by good works, hell is a never ending danger for you.

Anyhow, thank you for asking. Now leave my user page alone ok.Darrenss 22:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you still think that you can be raptured while commiting adultery? Or is that just another one of your changing doctrines? 58.166.64.70 05:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Why do I even bother answering you?? Obviously your cult group the potters house teaches that you'll lose your salvation if you disobey God making EVERY sin and every omission of knowing to do right and doing it not the possibility of hellfire again. John 6:36-47 alone is enough to establish clear foundation for the eternal security of the believer. If of course you don't accept what the bible says than I can't help you anyway.Darrenss 06:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

So I am saved right? 58.166.64.70 06:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

If you can't accept what the bible teaches then how can you be a christian? A person must evalute and accept the whole counsel of God not choose little bits that suit themselves. You are trying EARN your salavtion by applying legalism just the same as the galations were but your groups teachings isn't a fall from grace there was no biblical grace there to begin with. Thus you (and the potters house) are not saved by grace alone (if you distort the teachings on Gods grace) then what?? Something else besides grace? Darrenss 20:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok so even though I asked Jesus to forgive me, he literally showed me a great light in my room much like what Paul saw, and then after that I rwad the bible, heard the voice of God and started to obey Him, I am now not saved - but you believe in OSAS? What the?

To a strictly legalistic one must be introducing the Old Testament laws into Christianity. Legalism is one of the most misquoted words today, especially in Christendom. People have defined legalism as anything that is a restriction or any rule endorsed by a church. The correct biblical interpretation is that legalism is a term solely dealing with the torah, and nothing whatsoever to do with following the bible strictly, nor is it an admonition or warning to those who quote the bible or its teachings as they stand.

Many seem to think that the New Testament is a book that only set us free from the law to serve under a “grace” that enables us to do whatever we like with Jesus’ approval. People don’t seem to grasp that God has very high standards both in the dispensation of the Law and under Grace. If you compare the 10 commandments with the Sermon on the Mount, you will see that under grace it is STRICTER! Under the law you actually had to kill someone, but under grace you if you just hate someone or have prejudice you are just as guilty! Which is stricter? Under the law you had to commit the very act of adultery but under grace you only have to want to do it! Which is stricter?

I would be more inclined to say that people who add to the Gospel are basically just that, people who add to the gospel. They are not legalists unless they are trying to incorporate the law of Moses. So as we can see, legalism is not being zealous for New Testament truth. I know it can be hard to separate the two because Christianity is so used to calling anything that adds to the gospel Legalism, but worse, people say that if you strongly teach doctrine or biblical standard you are a legalist! It is bizarre really, people will say I am a legalist because I say to people that they should go to church, or they should read the bible or they should pray to Jesus etc.

S.D.A. ers are legalist because they add the Sabbath and other laws to the NT. But to call my church legalistic because we have biblical standards is wrong.

Nick. God Bless. 60.229.13.176 13:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I just talk about bible theology straight out of the bible not endless gibberish. I don't care about your version of legalism its only what your church has taught you. Grace(God)+ works(you) = legalism. Grace(God) + faith(me and everyone else) = salvation. Don't bother writing back I'm not interested in more of your rubbish I've heard it for 5 years and its not biblical. If you can't deal with a text of scripture in context (such as John 6:36-47) than don't go on and on. I stick to what the bible teaches. Legalism in a nutshell is an attempt to abide by laws (standards, rules whatever term you want to use) that would result in or take away salvation in Christ. Its an earthly mentality (philosophy) that isn't found in the scriptures. While you run off endless theories I accept the Word of God as it declares God's TRUTH through the endless ages. You don't like it well bad luck, your loss not mine, I'm happy serving the Lord who bought me.Darrenss 23:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

But where is the love, if you are saved and I am not, shouldn't you be trying to help me, or do you hate me? 124.183.205.164 05:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

With you Nick it is never a genuine appeal for love, just another tactic, an emotional plea to carry on the conversation. I have no intentions of trying to help you, later for you and your cult group. Or should I say where WAS the love that wasn't shown me? No its not my business to help any of you but to speak of the things of sound doctrine.Darrenss 21:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

But how could we ever show love if God predestined us to be cultic? Has God doomed me to be cultic, is there no hope or way out? 124.184.206.124 12:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Go away Nick. I'm done talking with you, you have no contribution but of being a pest. An annoying one at that. You have vandelised my user pages more than 15 times in the last month, find something else to do with your time. Childish.Darrenss 20:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I am also sad to see that I have been harrassed by this same user over and over again, even though he was banned he still harrasses me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Potters_house Darrenss 11:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Check your email
Check your email, sanity and absolution awaits you. Thewinchester (talk) 14:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

User page tidy up
I have taken the liberty of doing a tidy up to your user page. What I did was change external links to wikipages into wiki links, highlighted section titles.

I also removed to links to yahoo groups as they cant be considered a source for article material and are causing distress to other editors. The result of this is consuming a lot of unnecessary time with other editors addressing the the problems. Gnangarra 14:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Also your user page is on semi-protection meaning you, most users and all admins can edit it. Your talk page is still editable by anybody, though. I was initially waiting for another incident before doing it, but I looked at the history and saw it's been ongoing for months. I now have the page on watchlist so we'll know if it recurs. Agreed with Gnangarra's comments above. Orderinchaos 11:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Alan Jones (radio broadcaster)
I hope that you have seen the responses to your comments at the above. I am sure that you can make a useful contribution to this article given the complexity of the person and the ranges of responses to him. My response is probably more negative than yours but I am sure that all the editors who contribute to this article can reach a consenus on what should be included and excluded. In any event your countribution would I hope be respected and valued. Albatross2147 02:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Albatross, thanks for the invite. It is much more important for me to get along well with everyone, having said that I wouldn't be trying to remove anything from the article at all just add. I'm going to be flat out very soon studying so I will reserve contributions for later anyway. Take care.Darrenss 03:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

3RR warning
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Thewinchester (talk) 14:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Winchester, I tried talking to User:Sapienz but he deleted my post from his talk page. I discussed the issues on the Wayman Mitchell and the Potter's House Christian Fellowship talk page without any response. I can't work with him if he doesn't explain his problem to me. This is the same behavior that Nick Sayers adopted. Thanks for letting me know anyway.Darrenss 22:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)