User talk:Revzoom

Edits
Your recent edits to Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth (Southern Cone) are extremely controversial. Please note carefully Wikipedia's policies of WP:NPOV. This article cannot express an opinion about whether Jefferts Schori's actions were illegal, or about whether the disputed claim of membership in the Province of the Southern Cone is correct. It is not a PR piece of the diocese. I'm grateful for your clear statement of the possible cnoflict of interest you may have, and I remind you to please observe the guidelines in WP:COI. Tb (talk) 00:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I have edited the page to remove the word "illegally" in the interest of neutrality. Revzoom (talk)

You seem to be insisting on an edit war. That's not permissible. Please engage in good faith discussion about the article itself, on its talk page, rather than simply repeating the same edits over and over with no explanation of them. This is not appropriate. You must explain each change, and why you think it is the right change, and reach consensus, before insisting upon making the change. Tb (talk) 09:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Consensus seems to mean that you have to agree with it before you will permit it to stand. --The Rev. John H Munson (talk) 03:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There are multiple editors concerned. So far, it's hard to assume good faith, but I'm trying.  You began making a bajillion tendentious edits, and seem to think that this means that when you stop insisting on the most crazy of them, it becomes reasonable to accede to the others.  You admit that you edited in haste, in a hot head, "infuriated", and bothered that Iker was being cast in a bad light.  (Not sure what you're referring to; I think it is shameful to be deposed as he was, but that's the fact, and we don't stop reporting it because it makes him look bad.  I'm assuming you don't think there was any shame on him, so that leaves me confused about what you're referring to on that score.)  You need to think--yourself--about what might tend to an NPOV article, and not about trying to push particular changes.  Please think of what an article might look like which does not express a POV about controversial issues, rather than seeking to have the article express your POV as strongly as possible.  And yes, I'm going to object if you continue to make edits without explanation, without discussion, and without addressing anything I've said about them in particular.  You need to be explicit, clear, and patient, and take account of other points of view.  Tb (talk) 04:14, 25 January 2010 (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

Christianity newsletter: New format, new focus
Hello, I notice that you aren't currently subscribed to Ichthus, the WikiProject Christianity newsletter. Witha new format, we would be delighted to offer you a trial three-month, money-back guarantee, subscription to our newsletter. If you are interested then please add your name tothis list, and you will receive your first issue shortly. From June 2013 we are starting a new "in focus" section that tells our readers about an interesting and important groups of articles. The first set is about Jesus, of course. We have also started a new book review section and our own "did you know" section. In the near future I hope to start a section where a new user briefly discusses their interests.-- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds 21:02, 17 May 2013 (UTC)