User talk:Williamo1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
censored: Legal threat removed. See below. --Rob 04:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I have chopped out the testimony from William Oosterman because it is not encyclopedic. But please publish it elsewhere on the web and provide a link to it in the William Oosterman article. -- RHaworth 08:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Toronto Baptist Seminary, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material.
This article appears to be a direct copy from http://www.tbs.edu/. As a copyright violation, Toronto Baptist Seminary appears to qualify for speedy deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Toronto Baptist Seminary has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. If the source is a credible one, please consider rewriting the content and citing the source.
If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GFDL, you can comment to that effect on Talk:Toronto Baptist Seminary. If the article has already been deleted, but you have a proper release, you can reenter the content at Toronto Baptist Seminary, after describing the release on the talk page. However, you may want to consider rewriting the content in your own words.
Thank you, and please feel free to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Lbbzman 02:55, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Citywide Church
I've read through the article on Citywide Church which you appear to be heavily involved in. Although you clearly have strong political and religious views on several issues could you *Please* try to remain as unbiased as you can in writing articles. Wikipedia is not a soapbox upon which to espouse your personal views. Though an article on Citywide Church and an article recounting the history of Roy Gordon Lawrence are perfectly welcome here, moralisations (either good or bad) are not. Please keep this in mind when editing in the future. If you would like to discuss this further, leave a message in my user talk page which can be found by clicking on my signature here → Witty lama 05:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- I have removed most of unverified and/or bias information from Citywide Church. You may re-add it, in a balanced, verified manner, with proper citations. However, I urge to think twice about writing about a topic your are personally to close to, as it may not be possible to objective. --Rob 22:26, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Re: Hyper-Calvinism
Hi, William. Your addition was quite POV and completely unsourced. You claim that "many" misuse the term, but cite no examples. You claim, "Some Christians have been taught to label anyone who believes in the historic Calvinist position a hyper-calvinist...", but provide no evidence or source. You claim, "In many evangelical circles today, if you believe in the final preservation of the saints, the fifth of the five points of calvinist theology, you are a Calvinist. If you believe any of the other four points you are automatically denounced as a hyper-calvinist...", but, again, provide no examples or ecidence for that information. Who is misuing the term? Who has been taught to label Calvinists as hyper-Calvinists, and who has taught them? What evangelical circles label someone who holds to the first four TULIP pieces "hyper-Calvinist"? I'm simply asking for evidence from a reputable academic source. I removed the addition because it was unsourced and seemed to be going only on your opinion (please review WP:NOR). I truly hope you can improve the section and add it again at some point. Thanks...KHM03 19:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- Please discuss your additions on the talk page to prevent their removal. Thanks...KHM03 21:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- You have been reported for violation of WP:3RR and may be blocked. KHM03 02:36, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 3RR on Hyper-Calvinism
Hi. I have blocked both you and KHM03 for 24 hours for a 3RR on Hyper-Calvinism. Please adress the problem on the talk page instead of a revert war. For details see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR -- Chris 73 | Talk 09:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image Tagging Image:Image08.jpg
 |
|
Thanks for uploading Image:Image08.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.
If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Lbbzman 17:49, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Roy Gordon Lawrence
I suggest you refrain entirely from this article. It's fairly obvious you are an involved party, who knows the subject first-hand, and are unable to remain neutral. Any attempts by you to put back attacks on people (especially third parties) will be promptly removed. Articles in Wikipedia must be neutral and verifiable. Personal unverifiable knowledge, especially bias views, is not wanted, and won't be accepted. As well, please be aware the prior versions (now reverted) that you contributed appear to be copyright violations from one or more newspapers (such as the Edmonton Journal). Wikipedia has strong rules against this, and will under no circumstances allow extended text to be taken from copyrighted material. Please do not repeat these actions. --Rob 23:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- I agree: don't push it. Take your concerns to the article's Talk page, cite verifiable and reliable sources, and work with others to achieve consensus. We have to be very careful where living people are concerned, whatever we might think of them personally. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C]
10:12, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image Tagging for Image:Image04.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Image04.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 19:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Hyper Calvinism
Please do not mark major edits (especially disputed ones) as minor. JoshuaZ 20:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] personal comments in article space
In this edit of Roy Gordon Lawrence you referred to an editor personally. By wikipedia policy, this kind of thing isn't allowed in actual articles. In talk pages, you have every right to suggest somebody personally involved in the case, shouldn't edit the article. Of course, that applies to both of you equally. He would rather there be no article on Lawrence. You would like the article to say more, and discuss the other church. Neither of you is going to get what you want. You'll both have to live with that. --Rob 22:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
There is no glee in trying to protect innocent children from the possibility of harm. It is against the advise of police that Roy Lawrence is given a teaching position. The question I have is very simple. Do the "elders" of Grace Baptist Ottawa inform every parent with children who begin attending that the man teaching the series on temptation for the past 6 months is a predatory paedophile who almost relapsed in 2004 (there is no known cure) or do they just cover this up? The shame belongs to those who followed this man and wanted to make him pastor, EVEN AFTER they knew about his past. The shame belongs to those who to this day allow him to teach (a position that automatically carries with it authority) when they know he has confessed to at least 15 more cases of molesting and to this day has refused to co-operate with the police in solving those serious crimes. Quote what ever scripture you want, but this is not repentence and change and indicates he is still a serious threat. The police see it that way. The people at Grace Baptist are either uninformed or seriously negligent. —This unsigned comment was added by Williamo1 (talk • contribs) .
[edit] Hyper-Calvinism
Please stop making POV edits to hyper-calvinism, there is a consensus not to have that section. Thanks. JoshuaZ 03:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- Not where I come from. The many maligned calvinists would appreciate, as a breath of fresh air, the truth. Why are you afraid of the truth. What I stated, and will re-state for as long as it takes, is TRUE and I even went and got a few quotes. I could supply many more to prove it is true. What is the point of having a section on this if we are going to cover up the truth? (posted by Williamo1)
[edit] Legal threat
I have removed the legal threat which was made at the top of this page, which you made against another editor. Please read Wikipedia:No legal threats. Any person making legal threats against a fellow Wikipedian is subject to blocking (by an admin, not by me). I assume you're problem was with the editor editing the "William Oosterman". I'll ask that editor to not do that (due to personal bias), but suggest you avoid making legal threats on Wikipedia. The next legal threat will be reported formally. Please realize that this issue rises above the other squabbles you've been having here. There is a zero-tolerance policy for legal threats on Wikipedia (regardless of their legal merits). --Rob 04:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- It's a moot point anyway as I have no intention to further edit his article. It was simply an illustration of how "the golden rule" is never considered by Williamo1 when he edits article on other people he is personally connected to. In fact, I'll likely stay off Wikipedia because it is a waste of mental time reverting his edits. Andyru 11:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Near vandalism
Please be advised that arguing in article space (as opposed to talk pages), may be considered vandalism. I won't count this, as I'll assume you don't know the rule. But, please stop this. This edit doesn't belong in an article. Also, the "church record" is not acceptable source for Wikipedia. See reliabe sources for more details (we also usually frown on school newspapers, personal belongs, personal testimony, etc...). Sometimes such sources are ok for minor/unconested claims, but never for anything questionable or signficant. At a minimum, a source should be independent of the subject. Also, you may wish to read WP:AUTO. --Rob 05:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Rob, the church documents I refer to are legal documents, minuites of meetings, that every church must keep. Minuites of what happened must be approved by the members at the next meeting as accurate. They would stand up in a court of law as having great weight. If it is acceptable in a court of law as a record of what happened, why not in Wikipedia?
[edit] RFC Created
I have created an RFC page dealing with your edits to Hyper-Calvinism. You may respond to the RFC in the Response section of that page. Lbbzman 17:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Williamo1. --Rob 03:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 3RR violation at Roy Gordon Lawrence
Hi, you violated the three-revert rule on Roy Gordon Lawrence. I have disabled your editing permissions for 24 hours. Please read our guide on dispute resolution during the time you are unable to contribute to Wikipedia. Feel free to return after your block expires, but take your differences to the talk page and please refrain from edit warring. Cheers, —Ruud 03:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
