User talk:Hyper3

Hello Hyper. Good to see another wikipedian with an interest in charismatic restorationism. I was happily part of a Salt and Light church for a number of years, and became acquainted with Barney Coombs. I am interested to know where you fit in the scheme of things, and how you gleaned your knowledge about Wallis and Lillie (i.e. dates of their baptism in the Holy Ghost).A.J.Chesswas 20:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Ichthus Christian Fellowship
Thanks for catching that. -- Neil N   talk  ♦  contribs  18:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

PhDs and New Churches
Dear Hyper, I'm not sure if this is the best way to contact you, but I couldn't think of any other. I'm also researching ecclesiology for a PhD. I might well know you (I'm going to the Deep Church seminar tomorrow, and guessing that you might be there, too?!) I'd love to be able to chat a bit. I'm looking at the relationship between institutionality and Pneumatology in ecclesiology, so the New Churches, and the PCM generally, come into that. I don't know how to swap email addresses using Wikipedia, but if you do, let me know! God bless, Nuncdimittis —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nuncdimittis (talk • contribs) 14:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Nunc
To reach me just click "email this user" in the toolbox to the left. Look forward to hearing from you. Hyper3 (talk) 19:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Roger T Forster
I have more specifically spoken my objections to the Roger T Forster article. This article needs a substantial rewrite before the "POV" tag is removed. The subject of the article does seem noteworthy, but the article does need a substantial rewrite V. Joe (talk) 14:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

RTF 2
I have substantially rewritten the article, but please consider (if your sources have it) adding details about his birth, family (if any), RAF service and other details. Even... is he a layperson or is a member of the clergy? What notable works of apology or other academic articles has he written. (Maybe he has also published about an obscure hobby?) Where was he born? etc V. Joe (talk) 19:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

RTF3
This is a substantial improvement...It could still use biographically notes, which is the purpose of categorizing... to let experts look at the subject V. Joe (talk) 20:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Neo charismatics
Perhaps you can help me here.

My understanding (and memory) is:

1. Pentecostalism started around the beginning of the 20th century. Its defining feature is a belief in the baptism of the Holy Spirit "with signs following", or more specifically the gift of tongues as a sign that was expected and required.

2. The Charismatic Movement started in the 1960s outside the historic Pentecostal denominations. Typically adherents believed in a specific experience of baptism in the Holy Spirit, but not neccessarily with the gift of tongues as a sign that was required. For many, the charismatic movement took place within the historic churches, in a move known as Charismatic Renewal. Others left and formed new churches or groupings, such as the British New Church Movement.

3. Although Charismatic renewal proved acceptable within mainline denominations in teh UK, it was always more suspect in the USA. When John Wimber and others taught of the gifts and manifestations of the Holy Spirit without the classic terminology and without a specific experience of baptism of the Holy Spirit, this proved more acceptable, and the Vineyard movement grew and influenced others in a Third Wave from the 1980s, which is also known as neo-charismatic.

This would appear to be consistent with The Encyclopedia of Christianity By Erwin Fahlbusch, Geoffrey William Bromiley, David B. Barrett p. 139

Certainly, the Jesus Army would see itself as part of the Charismatic Movement, rather than Third Wave, or neocharismatic.

John Campbell (talk) 18:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * John,


 * I am using the definitions given in the New International Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements xvii-xviii.


 * 1. I agree


 * 2. I would suggest that the Charismatic Movement is defined by people staying within the historic denominations after beginning to use spiritual gifts. Those who leave the historic denominations also leave the Charismatic Movement (capitals) although they continue to be "charismatics". This is quite confusing, I know.


 * 3. Neocharismatics are all those who use spiritual gifts but have no connection with previous denominations.


 * I think your source could be consistent with both explanations, however what it does not make clear is that the Charismatic Movement is usually defined as a particular historical movement associated with the historic denominations from 1960 onwards. The "third wave" description that Wagner offers has not been taken up so readily by scholars, and having once used it, I have avoided it. It stems, I believe, from the need for non-Pentecostal Americans to distance themselves culturally from Pentecostals, due to the perceived cultural problems produced by televangelism, healing evangelists and the health and wealth gospel. Those outside the US do not have the same cultural problem, and so are not so bothered. I am happy to distinguish between neopentecostals (another term meaning neocharismatics + charismatics!) on the basis of whether they stayed within historic denominations, or not. To this end, the Jesus Army is charismatic, neo-Pentecostal, neo-charismatic but not part of the Charismatic Movement...


 * The emergence of the term "neocharismatic" has been associated with the need to describe a wide range of charismatic post-denominational groups that could not be held in other terms.


 * Come back on anything that isn't clear, or that you disagree with... Hyper3 (talk) 20:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * OK. Definitions have obviously moved on. An older edition gives alternative definitions of Charismatic Movement as being either restricted to "within historic denominations", or "both within and without but non-pentecostal". But it doesn't mention neocharismatics. Personally, I'm not sure how helpful those definition of either Charismatic Movement or neocharismatic are, given that the charismatics appearing in the 1960s, whether in or out of historic denominations, had so much in common. (Do you use the term "Charismatic Renewal" at all? That was the usage in the 1960s onwards to distinguish the Charismatic Movement within the historic denominations.) The bigger distinction to my mind is the appearance in the 1980s of a movement typified by Vineyard churches that attempted to bridge the gap between pentecostal/charismatic terminology and historic phraseology by avoiding mention of baptism in the Holy Spirit as a definite second experience. But I must bow to the scholars. John Campbell (talk) 10:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

William Branham
I have replied to your comment at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rev107#critics —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rev107 (talk • contribs) 03:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you have done a good job ... would prefer to see "message believers" given capital letters though :)   Rev107 (talk) 07:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Todd Bentley
The past few months turned the Todd Bentley article ragged with edits. I just read your re-write, and while I know nothing of the validity/cites used - the language is such an incredible improvement that I wanted to stop by and thank you for your effort. EBY (talk) 01:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Lakeland
I understand what your trying to do, but instead of you just saying it wouldn't it be better for us to cite example where christian leaders have said that this is icompatible with christian living. For example, Dutch Sheets released a statement which addresses many of these concerns. I will try to find others reactions to this and the controversy that resulted from leaders commisioning and "apostalically aligning" themselves with Bentley and the fallout its caused. Give me sometime and I'll come up with something or if you have a better idea put it in. I just didn't like having just a blanket statement like that with no support.Ltwin (talk) 21:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

However, after reading your message again, I don't see how it could get anymore obvious. Do you think the article as it stands right now is not clear enough on the circumstances surrounding the separation? To me it seems clear, but I wrote it so it may not be as understandable to other people.Ltwin (talk) 21:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

OK. I get what you saying.Ltwin (talk) 22:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Association of Vineyard Churches
I'm not sure where you got the impression that "related books" refers only to the history of the Vineyard movement. I would either create a subsection referring readers to the historical publications, or leave it as is now (a general reference book section) for all books which come from within the Vineyard movement and define the values of the Vineyard movement. This is most beneficial to the Wiki reader who wants to know what Vineyard actually believes beyond a Statement of Faith.

As for "famous" clergy, I don't think that you can break this down to the number of non-Vineyard media references to an individual. Again, this is a general category which should point readers to people within or near the Vineyard who can help define what the Vineyard is. Dave Schmelzer is not a regionally-known individual (I myself am from a region far away from his). I am closely connected to several on the AVC board who are all friends of Dave. His values help define the next generation of the Vineyard. He is well-read both inside and outside the Vineyard movement. In my opinion, as with the related books section, a reader like myself would be most benefitted by being directed to as many of the significant individuals who have an impact on the historic, present, and future shaping of the Vineyard movement. There are several others I intend to add such as Charles Park, who spoke at the last National Conference, and Jeff Heidkamp, current editor of Cutting Edge magazine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stage4chemist (talk • contribs) 05:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Christian revival
You've been doing some excellent work on various charismatic/pentecostal articles in the last few months. Many thanks. If you happen to be looking for another challenge, then take a peek at Christian revival. It is seriously poor, and I don't know where to begin! (If you want to reply/discuss, then do so here in your talk-page; I've just put it on my watch-list). Best wishes. Feline Hymnic (talk) 23:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the encouragement. I've pruned a few of the more obvious errors on the page, it is quite a monster. The sort of overview required to get it right is huge. The trouble with finding a framework for this is it has too many dimensions; people differ on their view of the definition; it happened over a long period; it happened all over the world. My area is a little different, so I don't have many resources on the history of revival. My research is on the British New Church Movement, and the last forty years. When I need to explain something historically, then I go back further. So I've had to refer to the innate "revivalism" of my area, but not gone into historical detail. We need a few books to give us a clue on how to organise the material. Hyper3 (talk) 12:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Feline - I like what you're doing. Using the time framework makes sense, and if it is necessary, different geographical regions can be mentioned within that. Now the paragraph called "history..." needs redistributing into chronological order. I've realised that there is very little on the 20th century, which I might be able to help with: Azusa Street, Latter Rain, Toronto etc Hyper3 (talk) 00:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. There were some details I wanted to fix, so I did some tentative re-structuring while I was there. I realised that the "History" section was still anomalous, so had intended to come back to it later. But I see that another editor has also noticed and has himself addressed this (good!). Happy New Year. Feline Hymnic (talk) 12:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Association of Vineyard Churches
While I agree with your edits to the page, I think you may have been too hasty with the changes, especially since, in your edit summary, you mentioned that there wasn't an answer to the discussion. You gave less than two days for discussion...over a holiday no less. Appropriate time for discussion tends to be one week, minimum, for any page because it gives a variety of people a chance to discuss (not just those who watch the page like a hawk and don't do anything else in their day-to-day lives like celebrating the New Year with their families). Considering how few people edit this particular article, a period of two weeks may have been more appropriate.
 * Point taken. Hyper3 (talk) 23:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I will also mention that you need to condense your discussion topics. They may be about different things, but it appears that the first topic is an old discussion because there are three discussions below it. The only way to tell it isn't old is by carefully reading the entire thing, including the date. You can easily say something like "I would like to discuss these topics: A, B, C, D" and then go in depth below that line, all within the same section on the talk page. It keeps discussion moving (I actually thought those were old, dead topics until I saw your most recent edit) and it keeps the page far less cluttered.
 * A matter of style, don't you think? I prefer to talk about specific things under different headings, for clarity's sake. Hyper3 (talk) 23:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The last thing I will say is to just be bold. If you don't think something should be there or if you think something should change, change it. You don't have to discuss every addition or removal you make, even if it's large. Unless it might be extremely controversial or someone reverts an edit of yours, leave discussion at bay. Only the final two of your discussions really need discussing and those could both, easily, be condensed to one topic. --132 22:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think being bold is appropriate in the first instance, until a difference of opinion arises. Then talking makes most sense. I think we'll agree on that. Sometimes I prefer to flag up a big edit before I do it, as it helps dialogue if anyone with an opinion wants to comment. Hyper3 (talk) 23:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Tocleft template
Hello there. I removed the "tocleft" template from Dunbar's number because I couldn't see any reason for its usage, and it was making the article look oddly non-standard, for no obvious reason.

The usage information for the template specifically says "It should only be used in cases where the TOC gets in the way of other content or is detrimental to the layout of the page; it should not simply be used for aesthetics since it tampers with the standard appearance of articles." The same goes for "tocright". --McGeddon (talk) 19:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

RE: Vineyard etc.
Hyper3 - It seems to me that we both (and, I hope, the community as a whole) seek one thing: to accurately define the Vineyard movement (specifically in this Wikipedia article). Clearly our definitions of what is "accurate" diverge a bit, but I think that we can come to some agreement. Although I am new at participating in the encyclopedia, I have been following it and specifically pages such as that for AVC for quite some time. Yes, I am intimately involved in the Vineyard movement, and am good friends with several US national leaders. My knowledge of emerging leaders and figures in the movement is clearly at the forefront compared to yours. Yet, I would imagine you would appreciate this insight, particularly since I am specifically choosing verifiable sources (authors, conference speakers, AVC magazine editors). Certainly it would be helpful for others in the Vineyard to corroborate, although this discussion seems to be primarily between the two of us. I cannot stress enough that this encyclopedia is an important venue to define some of the integral values of the Vineyard when compared to other Christian and non-Christian denominations, e.g. social justice as well as evangelism, environmental care as well as physical healing, etc. Furthermore, I would add that while this article is technically representative of the worldwide AVC, much of the information is particular to AVCUSA, of which I am well informed. Fame in an international sense may not be relevant here. For example, I would accept keynote speakers at the AVCUSA national conference as "famous" within the Vineyard, and individuals whom outsiders should look to when investigating what the Vineyard is and what it believes. I thank you for prompting me to think more about my contributions, but I believe that our perspectives are quite different. Remember that while academic integrity is highly valued here, Wikipedia is not an academic journal. I would not be caught dead citing an entry here for a national conference or journal paper on my research. It is a venue for all of us to expand our knowledge as it evolves. And the Vineyard is evolving; new leaders and figures are emerging and should be contributed to Wikipedia as a way for readers to better understand what Vineyard is today (as well as what is was, as you are quite passionate about). --Stage4chemist (talk) 16:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Bentley, Wigglesworth
Don't know what happened to the edit summary. I wrote one. Basically the reference didn't say that he was influenced by Wigglesworth. Am I missing something here? I can as easily find an article talking about his healing claims and  write "in the tradition of Jesus Christ or Benny Hinn or ....... Ltwin (talk) 20:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The comparison is all over the internet - but I need to find a better quote that makes the actual connection... I've found him saying he wants the anointing of Smith Wigglesworth, but no reference to violent healing. I need something better than a blog of course. So still looking. Its an important point to locate him, as Wigglesworth is no doubt the reason he was hitting people. Without that, people will think he made it up. He does it "in faith" to be like the healers who have gone before him. But a current reference would be better. Hyper3 (talk) 22:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Found him making the connection himself in one of his books! Hyper3 (talk) 23:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

This seems better. Good work. Ltwin (talk) 23:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

What do you know....
What do you know about Pentecostalism? I see you work alot with the Charismatic movement articles and was just wondering if you had any knowledge of Pentecostal beliefs and history. If you do, would you mind helping out with the Pentecostal article? Thanks. Ltwin (talk) 05:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Todd Bentley, Part 2
Hyper 3, while "Joel's Army" is clearly an important topic to touch with Todd Bentley - a discussion of it doesn't belong in a paragraph on Todd's appearance. Nor does an in-depth discussion of what "Joel's Army"  is belong in a BIO:LP of a single preacher. However - in hunting for a way to link it back to Bentley for people who ARE interested in what the movement is about, I noticed that "Joel's Army" doesn't have a very good description anywhere. The phrase redirects to Latter Rain movement in Wikpedia, but nowhere in that article does the topic actually explained. If you have the cites and information, that would be a valuable addition to the Latter Rain article - especially in linking to it from topics like Bentley. EBY (talk) 04:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Bentley has multiple tattoo's, parts of his body are covered in ink. It is neither neutral nor balanced to call out one tattoo based on a single, biased, cite and discuss it in length in regards to a possible radical association. Especially an association that is covered elsewhere in the article. . This is an Encyclopedia - not a bully pulpit. A Biography of a Living Person has specific requirements and concerns. EBY (talk) 15:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

ALC - thanks
Thanks for the work on merging in the criticisms section, works much better than as a seperat pice that will draw attacks/support from others. --Nate1481 11:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The double break normally works but the block quote template turns it off, don't know why... --Nate1481 16:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Not attacking!
I'm a christian so I'm not attacking, if you read the articles of those people, they list scandals and/or controversies. It's an incomplete list but belongs with the other if an article is going to be done about it. I personally wouldn't like to see the page at all, we all sin. But so that it is, if you would look at the articles and events of those listed, they would apply. Don't assume. 63.131.4.149 (talk) 10:23, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Your edits must be properly sourced, or they will be removed. The page is about evangelists, not Christians in general. Hyper3 (talk) 16:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

May Metro
As Simply South is busy, I've stepped in for this one; this is my first time, so feel free to fix any mistakes or let me know of anything I've missed. – iride  scent  18:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC) 

Emerging church
I have reverted your reversal--allow me to explain why. (BTW, the first time I used rollback, since the reversal, in its history, appeared to be an act of vandalism, and that leaves no edit summary.) The removal of fact tags was not, IMO, done correctly, esp. since (as you'll see from the history) this was done without any kind of explanation. Moreover, the reversal still kept the same weasel-words intact. Note also, your restoration of the text moves from unclarified remarks by "some evangelicals" to a note about "Historic Protestant Christianity," whereas the previous version (equally vague, unspecific, weaselish, and unverified) at least had the merit of doing that the other way around, from the more general to the specific, which would make some rhetorical sense. Rather than reverse again, you could consider (esp. since you seem to have some expertise in the matter) cleaning that entire paragraph up and finding some references. It's in an atrocious state in your or the other version, but the "tagged" version has the benefit of pointing out what state it's in. You've worked on these kinds of articles; please put your expertise at work. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I did do a lot of work on this page, and still its in a sorry state. Really, I'd like to cut out anything that doesn't have good footnotes, but that would be more bold than I am up to right now. I thought the second version was better than the first, and without a comment believed it was a good thing to bring it back - but we are dealing with fractions here. Leaving the issues in works for me too. My question is, do you have some experience with the Emerging church? Would you join in on some work here? I am researching in a near area, but its all so slippery... Some dialogue would help. Hyper3 (talk) 20:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

June Metro
I've decided to fill in the empty job vacancy for the Metro for this month, feel free to correct any mistakes or add any missing information. Cheers! Crest of London (T 22:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Mike Bickle
Kelly ''I believe your edits to Mike Bickle contravene wikipedia policy. Would you read WP:SPS and let me know if you agree? Using Tricia Tillin (for example) as a footnote wouldn't be a good enough source for it to be reliable, because anyone can publish their views and claim to be a source. Also, according to WP:GRAPEVINE it is important not to make defamatory accusations against living persons, and that material must be removed immediately. Calling someone's ministry "cultic in nature" amounts to this. Also, the word "cult" should be used in its scholarly sense whenever possible. A third issue is that we should avoid weasel words WP:AWW. Saying something is "widely considered controversial" amounts to this. I'm sorry that I have to keep removing this material, and hope you will understand. If you were able to refer to the sections I have suggested, I think together we could improve the article. Hyper3 (talk) 23:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)''


 * Hello Hyper. Allow me to take your talking points, well..."point-by-point", if I may:


 * - Calling someone's ministry "cultic in nature" amounts to this. Also, the word "cult" should be used in its scholarly sense whenever possible.


 * If you re-read what I wrote, I didn't conclude that Bickle and his ministries actually are "cultic in nature", I said that there are those (and those with experience in the area of cults) who see his leadership as cultic in nature. In fact, if you do a web search, you will find dozens of results which address what others see as cult-like activity and teaching by Bickle, in Bickle's church and at IHOP-KC.  And please...there's no defamatory statements being made here - if he's on the lists of cult-watchers (and he is, believe me), then the information is important and factual and even encyclopedic but definitely not defamatory.  I don't see any problem with including that fact in the article whatsoever - in fact, including that information rounds out the article to a more NPOV framework - deliberately *not* including it is what makes the article sanitized and unbalanced.
 * The issue is not truth, but verifiability, according to wikipedia standards. Of course many people have views, both for and against Bickle. The encyclopaedia project doesn't allow statements in the way you have explained. Every statement should be backed up with a verifiable source. To say that others think Bickle cultic is still potentially defamatory against a living person. I don't see in your answer any reference to the wikipedia rules I directed you to. Your argument is with them, not me.


 * - Saying something is "widely considered controversial" amounts to this


 * There's no weasling going on here - the fact is that the Latter Rain theology and movement have been and still are widely controversial amongst mainline churches, some charismatic churches, and amongst Christian theologians. Heck, even the AOG condemned Latter Rain theology in 1949.  I think it's a good idea to include Bickle's statement that he's trying to distance himself from Latter Rain, however (and this is a big however), when so much of what he teaches revolves around Joel's Army, personal prophecy, and typological interpretation of Scripture, it's no wonder so many insist that Bickle is Latter Rain based on what he teaches, what he does, and by whom he has been influenced.  Look, it's no differant than saying Barack Obama's policies are socialistic in nature - while Obama has never come out and said he's a Socialist and there has been no official declaration that he desires to see the US become a Socialist country, it's hard to deny that the things he has said (Joe the Plumber) and the things he has already done (taking over GM) and the things he would like to do (a nationalized health care system) do not have Socialism written all over them (not to mention the Socialist/Marxist people in his past he says were his mentors).  I'm not saying Bickle is Latter Rain, what is being said is that what he says and does and teaches and preaches is *very* Latter Rain in nature.  But hey...don't forget that I'm not the only one who's saying it...
 * again, you need to address the wikipedia standard WP:AWW. I agree that many have disagreed with Latter Rain Theology - if you were able to read my PhD in progress on charismatic churches in the UK you would find that I am also one of them! I can tell you enjoy wikipedia, and it is worth learning that according to wikipedia standards, we can't make statements that are not verifiable in this way.


 * - Using Tricia Tillin (for example) as a footnote wouldn't be a good enough source for it to be reliable, because anyone can publish their views and claim to be a source.


 * First of all, Tillin wasn't the only reference I included. Secondly, anyone can and most do publish their views online, in blogs, and in books - if those views are diametrically opposed to a particular viewpoint, that's called a differing or dissenting viewpoint.  And don't forget, we're talking theologcial ideologies here.  It's not as if theology outside of historical events or archeological discoveries proving certain historical events is an exact science - it's steeped in opinion - differing and otherwise!  From what I have seen of many, many other articles in Wikipedia regarding theological, Biblical, sectarian, etc. beliefs and understanding, it is quite common and perfectly acceptible (especially with controversial or fringe beliefs) to also have in that article references to other viewpoints.  But I've got to be honest...I am sensing here that because the references I included are not complmentary to Bickle and his ministries that is the reason why you want them removed.  So...in light of that - I have to ask if you are in any way affilliated with Bickle and/or any of his ministries (or any of his theologies and associates) which would make you decidedly biased.
 * I used Tillin as an example. I believe the same criticism applied to the other two footnotes. Again, wikipedia rules are the issue, and I think you should read them more thoroughly. Of course there is a wide range of theological debate, and where you can find an appropriate footnote in a scholarly journal, book or newspaper, then it will no doubt stand. As the rules say "articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." If you were to find something with this level of accuracy, then it would be hard to remove it.


 * - I think together we could improve the article.


 * I hope that together we can improve the article. However, if your idea of improving the article is making it completely favorable to Bickle and removing anything factual that might be seen as unfavorable to him or IHOP-KC, working together is not something I'm interested in.  Thanks for the discussion - I look forward to your replies.  SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 01:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * My idea of improving the article involves keeping the guidelines involved. There are so many disagreements and opinions in religion based articles that the only way to conduct a productive dialogue about such encyclopaedia entries is to respect the protocol. Where this happens, I think there is a genuine contribution. I'm not sure your last comment (or previous implications of bias) are good examples of WP:AGF... It is important to assume that others who contribute are attempting to do the right thing. Its best not to insinuate bias, or make derogatory comments about other wikipedia users. I'm sure you would want the same. In fact, you have removed much that was unfavourable to  Bickle, some of which should probably be restored to regain the npov... Hyper3 (talk) 09:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, there was no implication of bias in my last comments to you - I asked you specifically if you were afilliated with Bickle, IHOP, or any of his affiliates in the interest of Wikipedia policy regarding conflict of interest (and, BTW, these are questions you still have not answered). But...moving on - the recent changes to the Mike Bickle article are, IMO, quite good and show a decent rounding out and balance to the article.  Thanks for taking the time to do them - I think the edits have solved this mini-dispute quite well.  BTW - I am still quite interested in your answers to my questions.  I hope you will take the time to answer them.  Thanks - SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 17:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Capitalization
I would like to get your input as the the capitalzation of pentecostals and charismatics, especially as they are used the the article Charismatic Movement. I would lean to capitalizing Pentecostals and not charismatics. What is your judgment? R/T-รัก-ไทย (talk) 04:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

July Metro
 Oliver Fury, Esq. message  •  contributions  21:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The Metropolitan - Issue 16
--DavidCane (talk) 00:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

User:BrotherMeyers
FYI You left a message on their user page rather than their talk, so they may not see it. Proofreader77 (talk) 21:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

This is Brother Meyers, How can I contact Hyper3? —Preceding unsigned comment added by BrotherMeyers (talk • contribs) 21:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

IPU
Yo! So what's with the IPU?! Good to see you at R! Nuncdimittis (talk) 15:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring at conversion therapy
Your behavior at that article definitely does consitute edit warring. Please review the policy. Note that you have violated the three revert rule WP:3RR, and you can be blocked for that. Born Gay (talk) 22:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC) Having looked at the policy again, I am taking back the 3RR accusation, but your behavior at that article is clearly unacceptable edit warring. Your changes are not constructive and are not supported by the sources used. Born Gay (talk) 23:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Rather, the reverse is true. I am responding to your critique, by trying to improve the article, and you are reverting me out of hand.Hyper3 (talk) 23:07, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It is edit warring if you make the change repeatedly without discussing it on the talk page. That's what the policy is meant to prevent. I reverted your edits because they misused sources and introduced original research. Born Gay (talk) 23:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Heterosexism
Thanks for the thanks. Your edit was exactly what I was waiting for to make the touchy section work. I intentionally left it that way, hoping someone other than myself would pitch in because I didn't feel like getting into a debate or edit war to explain the obvious. I'm also glad you caught the "parallel" part: same direction but not the same thing. The first time I heard the "It's the same thing" comment was 20 years ago, and honestly, it still amazes me how easily some (white, gay) people equate any race-related oppression with being gay. I imagine it shows how ignorant some minorities themselves can be on civil rights. For example, 5 years ago when I was living in Canada, on live TV a fairly well-known gay researcher from Québec equated marriage rights discrimination to Apartheid! At worst, it shows how cognitively lax anyone can be. Let's hope for more cooperate and productive edits like yours and mine. --CJ Withers (talk) 03:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Conversion therapy
In the case of the article on conversion therapy, it looks like both "sides" have their own agendas and cannot see clearly enough to let the facts speak for themselves. So, I won't be working on the conversion therapy article not only because it's out-of-control but also because I am not "dedicated to fairness", with "fairness" meaning making sure two "sides" feel content or derserve justice. Instead, I work towards representing facts as neutrally as possible. Thanks for your heads-up and I hope to be doing some more cooperative editing with you on articles in which the only higher authority is the non-righteous truth. --CJ Withers (talk) 17:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Please be kind enough to use my user name, not some version thereof. Thank you. :-)

Also, please re-read what I wrote. It seemed you either read something into my reply or underestimated the mess and perpetual time-bomb that Conversion therapy, the article, is. Here is my reply again but in one sentence: I will not embark on a pseudo-article, which in reality is a finger-pointing debate that no amount of neutral intervention can change for now. This includes the homophobia article, regardless of any stance. Remember, the point of an article is to describe, not (equally) represent all views. If you choose, try perusing this latter article and you'll see what I mean. Feel free to suggest other articles that can indeed profit and bloom from a neutralization. --CJ Withers (talk) 21:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

September Metro
Simply south (talk) 20:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Born Gay (talk) 20:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Mediation
You appear to be trying to open a mediation case over conversion therapy. Doing this without informing me of it directly is inappropriate, and so is presenting the issue in a biased way. What you have done with that page, stating for instance that, "Conversion therapy suffers from many npov problems; however one editor reverts everything to do with a minority view, and is not attempting to find consensus. When something similar happens to him, he calls it vandalism", I do not find acceptable. Born Gay (talk) 00:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand that there are issues between us. So we need outside help. I'm not really sure how to get it, as there seems some reluctance to get involved. But I'm trying. Hyper3 (talk) 08:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If you wish to get outside help, then state the issues in a neutral way on the mediation page instead of trying to turn it into an attack page against me. Stop vandalizing the article, as you did here . Stop using edit summaries to make sarcastic personal attacks against me ("We need to reach consensus on the talk page first, as Born Gay has taught us all from wikipedia policy"). Regarding your readdition of several sources to the bibliography, I removed those sources because none of them are used to source any statements in the article. Born Gay (talk) 08:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * [1] Add your side to the mediation page, if you wish. [2] What I call editing, you call vandalism. That's why we need help. [3] I presume you no longer believe that consensus needs reaching on the talk page in a disputed edit, as that is the way you are behaving. I will act accordingly, as before encountering you, I believed that to be the way forward... Be Bold! [4] Fine, I agree. You have made your case. Hyper3 (talk) 10:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You didn't attempt to place your "side" in a section dealing with your views on the matter. You instead presented it as though it were somehow a neutral description of the disagreement. Please don't do that. It won't help you make your case to any mediator, and I don't appreciate it. I have always said that consensus needs establishing on talk; you've persistently made inappropriate edits without attempting to reach consensus, which is why I've felt free to revert them. Born Gay (talk) 20:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Replies
I comment on your talk page because I am now finding it very difficult to comment on the conversion therapy talk page.

Would you please stop adding quotations from NARTH to the lead, as you did here ? The quotation is stupid and completely pointless. Obviously if NARTH is "advocating secular forms of conversion therapy" then they would believe that "providing psychological care to those distressed by unwanted homosexual attractions" is appropriate. The quotation is not "notable" (which concerns what topics may have articles created about them, see WP:NOTE) and nor would it be relevant if it was.

Regarding your "Yes" vote to including Aesthetic Realism in the history section - have you thought about this at all carefully? Aesthetic Realism is not "clearly relevant" because sources that deal with the history of conversion therapy don't mention it. It might have a very limited degree of relevance, but even that is not "clear." Declaring that sources may be "weak" because they do not mention it is a poor reason for adding material that violates due weight.

Regarding criticism of ex-gay treatment, you say that there should be criticism of "ex-gay SOCE". To be clear about it, what there should be is criticism of ex-gay conversion therapy, because that's what the article is about, not SOCE. Your not liking Haldeman as a source just is not relevant; it's an important and influential source that must be there. If he deals with sex scandals, then some brief information about that must be there. Yarhouse is not appropriate material for the article.

Born Gay (talk) 22:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Your recent talk page edits
Please do not use article talk pages for attacks on editors or aggressive failure to AGF / personal attacks / similar unproductive verbiage. I have removed two inappropriate posts by you now, and suggest before you post a third, you read WP:BATTLE and consider carefully whether your post will be read as trying to improve an article, or trying to pick a fight with another editor. If you have any questions, please post them here and I will be happy to help you. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 23:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You'll need to be specific. Hyper3 (talk) 23:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

after ec: Moved from Talk:KillerChihuahua

You'll have to help me here. We are all trying to follow the conversation, and I want others to see my response to BornGay. Why is it vandalism to post on the talk page? You should show me the wikipedia policy. Merely writing in CAPITAL LETTERS does not make policy. I do believe there are guidelines on that, I think they call it shouting. I can hear you perfectly well!! Hyper3 (talk)


 * Generally, caps means a policy shortcut. AGF = WP:AGF.
 * Your post was titled "Replies to born Gay" and as such, belongs on his talk page. If it is to all editors regarding the article, it would be appropriate on the talk page and I would not have removed it. You accuse him of "trying to control what I add or not" which, translated, simply means there is a content dispute which you have made personal. You accused him of control a second time, with "You have no right to control the definition of the page in a strict way of your own making. Wikipedia is about the wisdom of crowds, not experts who split hairs. Edit on scholarpedia" - you have not only attacked him again, you have exposed your own misunderstanding of our policies and spoken in a somewhat rude way about insistence on good sourcing - something which I assure you is policy. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 23:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've noticed that you have spoken to him rather robustly at times, so I think you know what I'm dealing with. So help me do it right. (As it happens, I'm in favour of wikipedia policies even though it may not always favour my views.) In this instance, I think the article is about a minority viewpoint, and so should reflect the minority viewpoint appropriately. With due weight and appropriately verified, properly sourced and all, I understand. However, everything that might explain what the minority viewpoint gets rejected with a variety of wiki-alphabet soup. This is all predicated upon the thought that the article is about certain meanings of conversion therapy and not others. The reparative therapy page has been merged with this one, yet references to reparative therapy are not considered relevant to conversion therapy. I don't want to take out stuff, (well, some) just provide appropriate weight. I've tried to get help from noticeboards, tried to get mediation, but got nowhere. This is a fun hobby to me, and the difficulty has made it more interesting, but I'm wondering how anyone sorts out something like this, or whether it really is possible to dominate a page with clever editing, as some commentators have suggested. And its likely that I'm wrong and don't understand how to play the game; but it would be great to work out one way or another! Hyper3 (talk) 23:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh... "rather robustly"... nice euphemism, much appreciated.
 * Howsomever, a warning about policy is not the same as accusations of "control" attempts, you see the difference? Regarding reparative therapy, was there a merge discussion? Even if not, if the articles were merged then it should be included. What about a move to "Reparative and Conversion theraphies" leaving redirects all over the place? I'm tossing this out, mind you, if the idea has merit it must be discussed on the talk page.
 * Where did you try to get mediation? I don't remember a MedCom request. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 00:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Hyper3, with all respect, the article's not about a minority (pro-conversion therapy) viewpoint. It's about a particular controversial practice, and it needs to reflect the mainstream view on that practice. The NARTH quotation, in my view, does not add anything helpful or necessary to explain their viewpoint, because the description of NARTH that was already there covers the same territory. Supporting conversion therapy and advocating treatment of people distressed by unwanted homosexual attractions are the same thing, and there's no reason to state the same thing twice over, in slightly different ways. I've never said that references to reparative therapy aren't relevant to the conversion therapy article; actually, I agree that they are. Reparative therapy is sometimes regarded as a distinct form of conversion therapy, so there may be a case for turning the redirect page it currently is into a distinct article again; however, that would be low on my list of priorities. The current title of Conversion therapy is appropriate. Born Gay (talk) 00:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You say its not, I say it is, blah. You should answer my question: what would that page be called? If we were creating a page on the minority viewpoint that SOCE works? You won't, I know because the only answer is "conversion therapy."Hyper3 (talk) 00:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Guys... I think I see the crux of the disagreement, and its primarily semantics. The article is about Conversion therapy, BG is correct. And the method's usefulness, to be very loose with my verbiage, is... fringe, or disputed at best, Hyper is right about that. Surely there are grounds for discussing how to improve the article without getting into fights? It sounds to me like BG is talking about a table, and Hyper's talking about what a table is used for, or made of - they are both appropriate to an article on a table, yes? KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 00:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And surely there are sociological aspects as well as therapeutic - this is an interdisciplinary encyclopedia... Hyper3 (talk) 00:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'd have to agree, there are several aspects to this. BornGay, what say you? KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 00:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I would like to ask Hyper3 to stop adding the Jones/Yarhouse study. Its own authors say that it's not about conversion therapy, and that its relevance to conversion therapy is small at most. The material you want to add would have to be rewritten to even begin to be acceptable, and even in a rewritten form it would still be WP:UNDUE. Also, please do not violate WP:POINT with edit summaries. Born Gay (talk) 01:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * But it is SOCE, and so it is really. Your unfounded strict interpretations have not been accepted on the talk page as consensus, so why do you persevere with them? Hyper3 (talk) 01:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter if it is about SOCE. SOCE is not the subject of the article. I'm doing the best I can to uphold the content policies on an extremely difficult article, and have explained the reasons for my positions as clearly as I can. Born Gay (talk) 01:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

This seems to have moved to my talk page, or at least there is a parallel discussion there. I'm sticking to that one right now. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 01:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Stop using inappropriate edit summaries
Your two recent edit summaries on conversion therapy have been inappropriate. Please stop doing that. It creates unnecessary aggravation, and isn't acceptable in terms of policy. Born Gay (talk) 01:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * So you didn't find it funny. Hyper3 (talk) 01:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * clearly not; your appropriate response is to apologize for offending him.
 * On the other hand, BG, could you pick your battles? Lets concentrate on the content and try to ignore the minutia, which has little relevance and merely adds noise to the larger dispute(s). KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 01:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Trying to loosen up a little. Wry smile? Hyper3 (talk) 01:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, props from me for an attempt at humor, however BG's complaint/request makes it clear he finds it inappropriate. As he is the offended party, I suggest you apologize. You're not admitting ill motive; merely saying you're sorry he was aggravated by your attempt at humor. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 01:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm good at apologising. Sorry mate (as we say in London). Hyper3 (talk) 01:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Reply from talk:conversion therapy
Hyper3, I am replying here to your comments on talk:conversion therapy. I would not normally do this, but again I'm finding it necessary because the comments I tried to place on the talk page did not get through. You say that, "There needs to be a place for material that falls outside the scope of the article if it is defined narrowly"; my view is that the Conversion therapy article is only about conversion therapy, and that for the purposes of Wikipedia, conversion therapy is whatever reliable sources say it is. The article needs to be kept strictly on topic, regardless of whether information about other change methods exists elsewhere on Wikipedia or not. Putting information about those other methods into Sexual orientation change efforts would be premature and a serious mistake when SOCE is not yet the standard term, and may never become standard. "SOCE" so far is really only about the APA's views in one report. We need to be discussing other issues as well, such as the quotation from NARTH in the lead; my position is still that it is not necessary and should be removed. If you believe the quotation is necessary, could you please explain why? Do you intend to continue readding the quotation, if I remove it again? BG 22:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Help with SOCE
Hyper3, I would really appreciate your help and any comment you want to make at Talk:Sexual_orientation_change_efforts/Dumping_Ground. Joshuajohanson (talk) 14:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it is very important to equally present NARTH's view on everything, but I personally think we should first go after some low hanging fruit. The APA is already super liberal, and very much against CT, but the problem is BG took the liberal APA position and moved it even more to the left, so that even direct quotes from the APA seem to contradict what the article says.  It is much easier to argue the inclusion of mainstream medical position than the inclusion of NARTH, especially if we have help from the Medial Cabinet.  Don't get me wrong, I totally agree that both should be presented equally, but at least the article should accurately represent the APA, and we should get more support if we take that approach.  I mean, self-determination is a big thing that the article doesn't even convey and is a place where the APA and NARTH agree upon. Also, there is no point in trying to talk reason into BG.  He is only trying to put across his own point of view and does not care about logic.  The verdict is still out on Mish, but from working with him/her it seems s/he will actually back down if s/he doesn't have a logical argument, where lacking a logical argument never seems to stop BG. Joshuajohanson (talk) 23:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Joshuajohanson, you write, "Also, there is no point in trying to talk reason into BG. He is only trying to put across his own point of view and does not care about logic." Funny you should say that, because I have exactly the same impression about you. I've noticed that you apppear to think it's not necessary to justify your positions with reasons, and that when you do give reasons, they tend to be wrong or irrelevant. Giving responses like, "It's good content", in response to an explanation that something violates WP:SYNTH, for example, is totally ridiculous. If someone points out that something is synth, it's up to you to show that it isn't synth, not to wave the problem aside. What were you trying to say, Joshua - that the fact that something is "good content" shows that it isn't synth, or that it doesn't really matter that it is synth and that content policy can just be ignored? BG talk 01:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * JJ - actually its not really in NARTH that I'm so interested, but being able to express CT within the term of all parties. Being able to say "unwanted same-sex attraction" somewhere in the lead would help! I think your strategy of presenting APA material on self-determination is a good one. Hyper3 (talk) 09:14, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal case
Hello, my name is the Wordsmith, and I've volunteered to mediate your dispute. If you consent to mediation, please sign with ~ in the "Mediator Notes" section. Thanks, The Wordsmith (formerly known as Firestorm)Communicate 13:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Soho
Aren't all families good at cut-offs - I'm just giving you another example by running off to Glos - from mattsuzie

Inclusivity
It is generally better to avoid attempting to exclude other editors from a discussion. Might you refactor your comments here? - 2/0 (cont.) 12:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Love to help but don't understand. Make it a direct question? Hyper3 (talk) 16:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * In the above difference link, you accuse a fellow editor volunteer of ownership and obstructionism, and suggest that they be prevented from contributing to an issue. That is not on. Please adjust your comments to focus solely on the content with neither direct nor indirect sniping at anyone else. Anyone who reads the talkpage already knows that you and BG are having a dispute - please restrict it to the mediation page. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for being more direct. I do actually think all of those things are correct, and hope, to prove so. If I can't I will apologise. Sometimes the WP:DUCK test is appropriate. Hyper3 (talk) 17:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * BG has confessed to being a banned user Skoojal, which is what the above implications were about. Sorry for being mysterious. Hyper3 (talk) 20:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh well, back to editing - good eye. - 2/0 (cont.) 00:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Good job
Considering how long it usually takes to reason with Born Gay, I am surprised at how quickly he admitted to sock puppetry and how quickly he got banned. I had begun to suspect sock puppetry when he was so sure about the actions of other users, especially given his unique brand of logic. Good job at tracking it down and being bold enough to make the accusation. I think we can all breathe a sigh of relief and start working on improving wikipedia. Thanks! Joshuajohanson (talk) 21:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Good work resolving this matter. I should have noticed him when he started editing. We'll all be more skeptical next time a new editors shows interest in that article.  Will Beback   talk    21:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Yup. Hamster Sandwich (talk) 23:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * A proud transsexual? What next - an intersex liberation advocate? A militant lesbian? A furry? Anyway, thanks for noticing this incarnation.   Will Beback    talk    19:26, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

October Metro - better late than never
Simply south (talk) 21:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

CLose to 3RR - please use the talk page
Hyper3, you are approaching 3RR on New Religious Movements. Please engage the talk page where discussion about the phrase "in religious studies" has already been taking place. If there is a policy relevant to it's inclusion, which I am not aware of, please bring it up there. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 20:44, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You just broke 3RR. Please revert yourself.PelleSmith (talk) 21:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No I didn't. I implemented an agreed change. Hyper3 (talk) 21:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It clearly is not an agreed upon change since other editors don't agree with providing any context. If you don't want to revert yourself there is another appropriate forum for this matter.PelleSmith (talk) 21:04, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:BRD suggests dealing with each editor, one at a time, to create consensus. If you are saying you don't agree, then I will of course revert and look forward to your response on the talk page. Hyper3 (talk)
 * None of the editors reverting you, including myself, agree to add this context to the lead. I've argued repeatedly that it is actually confusing and counterproductive.  When you started edit warring there was a thread already going about this change.  I'm not sure how this is within the WP:BRD essay's suggested mode of behavior.  Bold, revert, discuss ... not bold, revert, bold again, revert, bold again ...PelleSmith (talk) 21:27, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You directed me to a different field, which I agreed... but now you have confirmed that this wasn't an agreement. So discuss. Hyper3 (talk) 21:32, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No I pointed out that field being used wasn't even the best one, but clearly I didn't agree with very mention of an academic context. How do you feel about this version?PelleSmith (talk) 21:36, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe the correct thing for me to say then is "Sorry." But I have a wry smile on my face that you can't see. Hyper3 (talk) 21:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

October 2009
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on New religious movement. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. tedder (talk) 22:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

SOCE
I made my case for my changes in my edit summaries. I am waiting for you to make a case anywhere, either in edit summaries or on the talk page. --Dr.enh (talk) 02:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Nov Metro
Simply south (talk) 00:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Character assasination
Your reverted eight of my edits with the edit summary, "restore unexplained removal of large amounts of text: please explain on talk page." Every one of those edits had an sufficient and clear edit summary. In addition, the edits were also discussed at. Your assertion of "unexplained" is uncivil, as it implies I am editing in bad faith. In fact, you are the one who did not provided a relevant explanation for your reversion WP:REVERT. --Dr.enh (talk) 03:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

December Metro
Simply south (talk) 21:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

New Year Metro
. Simply south (talk) 01:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Metro
Another issue to be addressed is, please could people indicate in the next month at the feedback page or on my talk page whether they still want to recieve issues of the metro. A lot of newsletters seem to be going to redundant pages. Simply south (talk) 20:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Future metros
You have been removed form the subscrition list as no response was given in the past month. If you want to readd yourself, please drop a note or go ahead. Simply south (talk) 23:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

April Metro
. Simply south (talk) 21:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

May + June Metro
Simply south (talk) 21:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

July Metro
Simply south (talk) 19:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

October Metro
Simply south (talk) 19:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

December Metro
. Simply south (talk) 08:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

January Metro
Simply south (talk) and their tree 23:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

March Metro
Better late than never. Simply south...... 22:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

May Metro
Simply south...... trying to improve for 5 years 22:26, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

July Metro
Simply south...... digging mountains for 5 years 21:55, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

SlutWalk
I replied on my talk page. — O'Dea (talk) 22:11, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

help please!
Hey :)

I took your suggestion of adding a footnote to the mercy ministries article, thanks :)

I'm having problems, I added the URL etc but it's not showing up how I thought it would. It's under the Locations section. You seem to know how to add footnotes (from your previous edits) so I was wondering if you would please fix mine?!

Much appreciated!! Thanks again :)

Tammyp2319 (talk) 02:24, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Vineyard UK
Hi, I just de-prodded Vineyard Churches UK and Ireland. Would you be able to provide more sourced material from your reference books, please?

Also, please consider WP:archiving this page, as it is getting slow to load! I'd even do it for you if you like? Best wishes, Fayenatic (talk) 19:51, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * See now Articles for deletion/Vineyard Churches UK and Ireland - Fayenatic (talk) 11:18, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Nash (Bash).jpeg
Thank you for uploading File:Nash (Bash).jpeg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a [ list of your uploads]. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 19:18, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Nash (Bash).jpeg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Nash (Bash).jpeg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 19:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

August Metro
Simply south...... unintentionally mispelling fr 5 years So much for ER 17:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Sepember Metro
Simply south...... eating shoes for 5 years So much for ER 22:38, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

November Metro
Simply south...... "time, department skies" for 5 years 01:31, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

"under heaven"
I see on Church planting you changed the article use of C. Peter Wagner from a cite to a quote. Wikipedia can't say "under heaven" but it can quote an individual who does say that. Thanks for the change. Zad68 (talk) 14:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

New Year Metro
Sorry its late and happy new year. Simply south...... having large explosions for 5 years 23:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Royal Military Canal Path
Hi, If you're adding something to an established list such as Long-distance footpaths in the United Kingdom, please comply to the established pattern: in this case give end points, but don't give much more detail. In this instance I decided to create the stub article for the path, so split out the excessive detail you'd added to the list (probably too close a paraphrase of the LDWA entry, really, but I let that slide) into the new stub. And I modified the entry in the list so it conforms with the rest of the list. Again, if adding a red-linked path to that list, please provide a reference to an external source (either of those I've used as refs in the article would do), to verify its existence. Thanks. Pam D  16:44, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Great housekeeping PamD. I get it. Thanks for creating the stub, a better way to handle the detail. Was going to be my next move... Hyper3 (talk) 18:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Your invitation to participate in a Wikimedia-approved survey in online behavior.
Hello, my name is Michael Tsikerdekis, currently involved as a student in full time academic research at Masaryk University. I am writing to you to kindly invite you to participate in an online survey about interface and online collaboration on Wikipedia. The survey has been reviewed and approved by the Wikimedia Foundation Research Committee.

I am contacting you because you were randomly selected from a list of active editors. The survey should take about 7 to 10 minutes to complete, and it is very straightforward.

'''Wikipedia is an open project by nature. Let’s create new knowledge for everyone!''' :-)

To take part in the survey please follow the link: tsikerdekis.wuwcorp.com/pr/survey/?user=99904037 (HTTPS).

Best Regards, --Michael Tsikerdekis (talk) 12:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

PS: The results from the research will become available online for everyone and will be published in an open access journal.

UPDATE: This is the second and final notification for participating in this study. Your help is essential for having concrete results and knowledge that we all can share. I would like to thank you for your time and as always for any questions, comments or ideas do not hesitate to contact me. PS: As a thank you for your efforts and participation in Wikipedia Research you will receive a Research Participation Barnstar after the end of the study. --Michael Tsikerdekis (talk) 19:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Moving pages
Hello Hyper3. I see you tried to move public school (UK) to public school (United Kingdom) using cut and paste. When you want to rename pages, please use the Move function. If the target page already exists and you cannot move the page, please make a request at Requested moves, instead of performing a 'cut and paste' move. This way, the article history stays in one place instead of being split across many page titles. --Joshua Issac (talk) 21:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Live and learn! Hyper3 (talk) 17:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

February Metro
Simply south...... having large explosions for 5 years 22:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Ichthus: January 2012
 In this issue...

- Ichthus is the newsletter of Christianity on Wikipedia &bull; It is published by WikiProject Christianity For submissions contact the Newsroom &bull; To unsubscribe add yourself to the list here
 * From the Editor
 * What are You doing For Lent?
 * Fun and Exciting Contest Launched
 * Spotlight on WikiProject Catholicism

April Metro
Simply south...... going on editing sprees for just 6 years (as of 28/03/2006) 21:51, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

May Metro
Simply south...... going on editing sprees for just 6 years (as of 28/03/2006) 23:08, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

June Metro
On time for once! Simply south...... coming and going for just 6 years 21:33, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

July Metro
Simply south...... always punctual, no matter how late for just 6 years 22:37, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

August Metro
Simply south...... flapping wings into buildings for just 6 years 22:36, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Feedback to Help:List
"I want help on verifiability. For example, can we use the main article to which the list item refers as the source of attribution?"

No. See WP:CIRCULAR. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 09:20, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 23
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of cities with defensive walls, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cuenca (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:49, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

October Metro
I'm sorry I missed September but I was rather busy. Enjoy. Simply south...... wearing fish for just 6 years 23:08, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Emerging Church
Hyper, where do you suggest a sentence or two that gives the "other side" on the emerging church is put? If you check the talk page of the article you will see that there have been numerous attempts to put in a "criticism" section, but it has been removed using the argument that Wikipedia doesn't like criticism sections but prefers to weave all such comments into the body of the article. I am happy to see this sentence inserted elsewhere, but where? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Journalist492 (talk • contribs) 20:41, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Mid Dec Metro
Sorry this edition is so late. Simply south...... walking into bells for just 6 years 11:47, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Jan Metro
Simply south...... walking into bells for just 6 years 20:42, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

March Metro
Simply south...... catching SNOWballs for just 6 years 22:02, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Seriously, I'm not trying to be a dick.
About our dispute at Slutwalk, I honestly do respect what you're trying to do. Women have a tough time even in more enlightened countries, and movements that give them some purpose and direction are definitely a good thing. But I sincerely believe that the information given in the lead was inaccurate. I'm saying this in the hope that we can work out a compromise, and the first step would be some dialog, either here or on the article talk page. I can prove that rallies happened in the US, Canada, and India. But I can't prove that rallies didn't happen in other countries. Anyway, let me hear from you, so we can communicate in a more significant way than revert edit summaries. PraetorianFury (talk) 16:28, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

April Metro
Simply south...... eating shoes for just 7 years 20:41, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Could you weigh in on this issue?
Hey again, could you weigh in on this issue being discussed on my talk page? I feel my reversion was hasty, but that there are also separate concerns for original research, weight, fringe viewpoints, and reliable sources, subtle POV pushing with See also links. After my kneejerk reaction to the original edit I'm worried that I'm too concerned with being right to comment on this objectively. So I'd greatly appreciate if you could lend your perspective. PraetorianFury (talk) 18:26, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Spiritual warfare for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Spiritual warfare 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/Spiritual warfare & 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:20, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

50th edition
Here is the 50th edition. I can only apologise this is so late as a lot of work came up but it is still no excuse so again I will apologise. Inside includes everything since the last edition as usual. Enjoy. Simply south...... fighting ovens for just 7 years 23:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Oct Metro
I will also happily accept requests for the gallery (if not, images will be selected from archives elsewhere). Again I will also remind people that if they ever want to try doing a future month's issue, feel free to with your own style etc or even just stick to the current format. Don't hesitate to contact me for the resources of things to include in this newsletter. Otherwise, enjoy! Simply south...... cooking letters for just 7 years 01:03, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

December edition
Please feel free to suggest any changes or add any requests such as images for the gallery. If you also want to have a try for the new year's edition or any future editions, please do not hesitate to ask. Simply south...... cooking letters for just 7 years 21:39, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Charismatic Christianity WikiProject
Hi Hyper3, I am reviving the Charismatic Christianity WikiProject and noticed you were active in the past so I am inviting you to come back and help me get it going again. Callsignpink (talk) 21:29, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)