Mikkirose: Feel free to discuss your edits to the UPCI page in the discussion page. Dcmcgov 17:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

July 2007

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on United Pentecostal Church International. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Gscshoyru 18:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for intervening. This is a long-standing vandalism problem that appears to involve two UPCI pastors (self-identified as such) repeatedly removing anything remotely negative about the UPCI from the page. If you look at the discussion page, you will see that attempts have been made to discuss this, but they just say stuff like, "There are critics of every denomination. We do not need to have them on this page." Several warnings against vandalism have been issued to two of them, and even one final warning, but so far they have gone unheeded. If you have suggestions about how to better deal with this, please let me know. Mikkirose 18:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the suggestion. Stop reverting and talk on the talk page. Just leave the page and discuss. Stop reverting, or you'll both be blocked for WP:3RR violation, ok? Gscshoyru 18:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mikkirose=

I strongly agree with you that this page should not be void of criticism, but I also strongly feel that it should be done the right way. I dont think posting a list of links is the appropriate way of doing it. There is no precedent for that style of editing on any other religious organization article, so I dont see why it should apply here. To get a sense for the prototypical "criticisms section", check out the Southern Baptist Convention article. The SBC is an organization very similar to the UPCI, so it's a good place to start. You can see that the criticisms section was weaved fittingly into the context of the article. There are some links to citations, etc, but there isnt a full page of links to anti-SBC websites. If that is the precedent that is set on this article, then who is to stop someone from posting another full page of links to pro-UPCI websites? I dont think that makes for a strong article of any integrity. In my humble opinion. Dcmcgov 01:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as keeping the links up until a better criticisms section is written, I really dont think that's the best way to handle this. Firstly, when a UPC'er visits the page and sees nothing but links to website that are critical of the movement, thier first inclination is to delete it, resulting in revert wars. And there is precedent for deleting links; when a trivia section is introduced to an article, the trivia must be weaved into the article or it is deleted, you are not allowed to just post a page full of random trivia because it makes a poor article. The same can be said for a page full of seperate links. However, if a solid criticisms section is written, using NPOV, and written with verifiable facts and citations, there is no justification for deleting it. I am working on an appropriate criticisms section, but honestly, I may not be the best person for the job seeing as I am a UPC pastor. I am very aware of the criticisms of our movement, and I think if a criticisms section was written fairly using NPOV, it would better the article. Dcmcgov 01:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Block warning

Please do not continue to revert other editors without explanation. Differences of opinion need to be discussed at the Talk Page of the article concerned. If you continue to revert other editors you may be blocked without further notice. Please note that I've said the same to the other involved editors. Thankyou.ELIMINATORJR ^TALK 18:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]