User talk:Oi!oi!oi!010101

EBY3221 (talk) 20:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Todd Bentley
The section headings are controversial and can not remain. PLEASE read the Biography of living persons policy,Biographies of living persons. Thanks EBY3221 (talk) 19:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey I don't agree with you. They are cited from respetable newspapers and agreed with on Mr.bentey's webpage. I've read it and I don't see where it contradicts. --Oi!oi!oi!010101 (talk) 19:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * A section title like "Kicking Woman in the Face" is NOT NEUTRAL. It just isn't. Calling out instances of violence without balance adds bias to the article. The source's own webpage is rarely considered an objective source - especially in cases of a biography of a living person. Details and minutiae add bias to an article by weighing their information heavier than other sections. Please remember, an encyclopedic entry of a living person is more concerned with being conservatively written and neutral than being an expose.

We must get the article right.[1] Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space.[2]

Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm". EBY3221 (talk) 19:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * About your request to re-add the material, I will try. A couple of things, Encyclopedias don't usually refer to the source pieces beyond the cites - just the material in them, if you follow. For example, not "NBC news reported that this guy is a closet licorice eater" - instead, "His consumption of licorice is a private matter." Another point - words like "Claims to" give the impression of bias - See Weasel_words for a much better explanation. That's two of the problems with your section "trips to heaven". It would be better to include these issues as examples of theological controversy with their cites, which I will do if you have no objection. EBY3221 (talk) 20:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah! Please do and thanks! --Oi!oi!oi!010101 (talk) 20:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * As a last piece of advice (since you did ask)... sentences like this "The POV came straight from the newspaper. I copied the verbage verbatim" make most editors run for the hills waving their hands and screaming. Admins, too. A) 'Verbatim' would mean you committed a copyright edit and B) Encyclopedia does NOT equal Newspaper, which has a very different threshold of neutrality. I know that Wikipedia can seem like a whole new world, but no more cut and pastes, OK? EBY3221 (talk) 20:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * K thanks for the help. :)--Oi!oi!oi!010101 (talk) 22:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Revert
Please be aware of the three revert rule and avoid removing the same content from Sarah Palin more than three times in 24 hours. Dragons flight (talk) 04:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi. You are adding rumor to a BLP. See discussion on that before going further. --Oi!oi!oi!010101 (talk) 04:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * And the discussion generally agreed that once the McCain-Palin campaign had addressed and refuted that rumor in the major media that it was reliably sourced and suitable for inclusion by way of explaining their current announcement. It is you that are ignoring the discussion.  Dragons flight (talk) 04:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Right but you keep including the opinion as to "why" they announced it when they did. That's what is to be removed. --Oi!oi!oi!010101 (talk) 04:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not opinion, they said directly that they were making the announcement in response to those rumors. Dragons flight (talk) 04:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Read the source again. "They" is the opinion of some insider that assumes he knows whats going on. That's the opinion part. It would be different if Mrs.Palin said it. Thanks for looking into it. --Oi!oi!oi!010101 (talk) 04:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "McCain officials said the news of the daughter's pregnancy was being released to rebut what one aide called 'mud-slinging and lies' circulating on liberal blog sites." That's not at all vague or equivocal.  Its a direct statement published as fact in a reliable source.  We are expected to trust such statements.  Dragons flight (talk) 05:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi mate, thanks for responding. I took a second look and nowhere do I find Mccain officials saying why they released it. I see them report thier opinion on why Mccain officials released the info, but not that officials have stated "to rebue rumors here is what we are doing". Please look again, did I miss something? Did you? Thanks. --Oi!oi!oi!010101 (talk) 05:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The quote I offered above is directly from . Are you saying you didn't see it, or are you saying you don't believe it is adequate?  Dragons flight (talk) 05:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "McCain officials said the news of the daughter's pregnancy was being released to rebut what one aide called "mud-slinging and lies" circulating on liberal blog sites." Gahh.. that wording is akward. I don't know what to do with that. Is that verification.. i just don't know. See.. that article is using so many weasle words.. they could be talking about one thing and the author could be applying it to several other things. Which officials were talking about which issue? So poorly worded.. or so perfectly worded as to allow this. Hmm.. I'm done with it though. Yeah.. in looking at it more.. it looks like the offcial in the article didn't specify that the rumors to be countered were "that Trig Palin is actually Bristol's son". It appears in this article that the editor is making that distinction. --Oi!oi!oi!010101 (talk) 05:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Victory Churches International


A tag has been placed on Victory Churches International, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be unambiguous advertising that only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add  on the top of Victory Churches International and leave a note on |the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from independent reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Cindamuse (talk) 20:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)