User talk:MTYM

hmm, does not look like you have read the Accountability Report 2011 really:

"2.4 Location of organisation's headquarters. The World Vision International Global Centre offices are responsible for global strategies, policies, standards and controls. The Executive office of the Global Centre is based in London and houses the President's Office plus several key leadership roles. Key functions (including IT, finance, programming and human resources) are located in other locations in capitals and countries around the world. "

source: http://www.wvi.org/wvi/wviweb.nsf/0DA5D0279F5038378825764F006DA5CE/$file/ACCOUNTABILITYREPORT_FY11web.pdf (page 4)

And also check wvi.org - they are not evangelical but Christian (unless you consider protestants, adventists and orthodox as evangelical but then check your definitions), so I quote from WVI.org:

"Who we are: World Vision is a Christian relief, development and advocacy organisation dedicated to working with children, families and communities to overcome poverty and injustice. Inspired by our Christian values, we are dedicated to working with the world’s most vulnerable people. We serve all people regardless of religion, race, ethnicity or gender.

Mission: World Vision is an international partnership of Christians whose mission is to follow our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in working with the poor and oppressed to promote human transformation, seek justice and bear witness to the good news of the Kingdom of God."

source: http://www.wvi.org/wvi/wviweb.nsf/maindocs/3F50B250D66B76298825736400663F21?opendocument

so please read up and correct. and in case of doubt call LEXO (the London Executive Office)...

on locations:

London Executive Office Waterview House, 1 Roundwood Avenue, Stockley Park Uxbridge, Middlesex UB11 1FG United Kingdom

source: http://www.wvi.org/wvi/wviweb.nsf/maindocs/E87F3116D624B1018825737500756070?opendocument

2001:980:A9DF:1:64FD:E2EE:9515:AC1A (talk) 20:14, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


 * That is no contradiction since evangelicals are christians. I have read a lot about WV and could give you a lot of internal and external sources showing that they are evangelical. Also you can read for instance in this dissertation (J.R.Hamilton: "An Historical Study of Bob Pierce and World Vision's Development of the Evangelical Social Action Film" Dissertation, University of Southern California, 1980) and also other publications why they prefer to use in their PR the word "christian" instead of "evangelical". Its not because they are not evangelical, its rather because they want also to advertise to people who are not evangelical themselves and may have negative association with the word "evangelical". The Webpage of World Vision, like most other organizations, are not primarily made to give accurate objective information, they are made to attract donors. --MTYM (talk) 20:28, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Monrovia, California is still the registered address. And there are anyway a lot of locations given as "headquarters" --MTYM (talk) 20:39, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


 * What is stated here is really flawed logic, as evangelicals are christians, not all christians are evangelicals - so reference to evangelicals to capture protestants and catholics is incorrect, should be the other way around - again flawed logic here - also, your reference is to WVUS materials, which is one of the many World Vision offices, which is a similar category of mistake as confusing WVUS President as the World Vision International President (which he is not).

Lastly, the Accountability Report 2011, wvi.org website and internal documents like Covenant of Partnership is not only to attract donors, it is also to communicate who we really are, including the many Lutheran, Reformed, Catholic and Orthodox leaders, many of who would definitely not agree with your shortcut of calling World Vision evangelical as a result of Hamilton's historical study on what is currently WVUS

In case of doubt, please check with the global leadership in World Vision International (of which I am part, best to connect to the Global Communications group) before making any further incorrect edits or assumptions. Thanks.

2001:980:A9DF:1:64FD:E2EE:9515:AC1A (talk) 20:48, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Read : Third-party sources. That's what we need and not people who claim the they some insider view. And BTW, isn't a Statement of Faith, identical with the Statement of Faith of the National Association of Evangelicals, part of the Covenant? --MTYM (talk) 20:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


 * This court case about WV's christian identity is pretty third-party and verifyable, which the book of Hamilton is not, that subjective biographical info from 1980 - so no current and verifyable facts

see: http://www.worldvision.org/resources.nsf/main/ninth-circuit-court-decision/$file/World.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:980:A9DF:1:64FD:E2EE:9515:AC1A (talk) 21:01, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

"and not people who claim the they some insider view." hence (checking the sources might be valuable for you) http://www.worldvision.org/content.nsf/learn/christian-identity-hiring-practices

2001:980:A9DF:1:64FD:E2EE:9515:AC1A (talk) 21:05, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh, a Dissertation is not reliable? and the case did not even threat the question whether WV is evangelical. Gell, Diskriminierung --MTYM (talk) 21:08, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


 * what about your logic then that if evangelicals are Christians, that a Christian organisation like WVI should be evangelical? hmmm... seriously start to doubt logical thinking capabilities here...

2001:980:A9DF:1:64FD:E2EE:9515:AC1A (talk) 21:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Why is your style of discussion exactly identical to the blocked german user Diskriminierung? --MTYM


 * Not sure, but why is it that you are very unWiki, you have not even verified claim of german vandal and not checked sources, you quotes a book about WVUS to apply to WVI, and you state that if evangelicals are christians therefore a christian organisation is evangelical - you refuse to check sources - if you continue like this you should be blocked... 2001:980:A9DF:1:64FD:E2EE:9515:AC1A (talk) 21:28, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * let's see who will be blocked. Actually I checked the sources. --MTYM (talk) 21:29, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.  Eye snore  22:12, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)