User talk:Potters house

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Jonny Lee Clary article

Hey Nick, Just to bring you up to speed. Jonny Lee Clary aka TheKingOfDixie created his own biographie that was deemed to be vanity and not notable. This user has a perticular fascination with editing Tom Metzger. I told TheKing that I would even work with him even though the guy flammed me like nobodies business. Please read/review the links above and if you feel you want to proceed lets do it. Since the article was already voted on and nuked, its going to get alot more scrutiny. However, there are TONS of bios out there that are alot less notable than this guy that are on WIKI. That doesn't justify his, but lets see whats what. I would suggest that you/I create a subpage/dummy page (pardon the pun Mr. Clary) off line if you will before we recreate this bio on-line.

I'll copy this to your talk page. Also, you aren't Mr. Clary, are you? That would also be a no-no. Also, always sign your posts with four(4) of these ~ . Thanks! --Tom 16:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Rick Ross Article

Hello Nick this is Aeon. Please send me the links that you are trying ot add so I can review the information. Thanks Aeon 17:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I can see why they are deleting it. See WP:WEB. The site isn't notable per Wikipedia Standards. A site needs to be mentioned by several independant soruces in order to be included. Hope this clears it up. Aeon 03:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Pastor Wayman Mitchell.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Pastor Wayman Mitchell.JPG. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, 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 files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 04:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Pastor Wayman Mitchell.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Pastor Wayman Mitchell.JPG. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 04:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Johnny_lee_clary.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Johnny_lee_clary.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spamming

Please don't spam talk pages... Sasquatch t|c 00:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I just thought that I needed to get more than one opinion. Please don't permanantly block me! Potters house 00:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC) Nick.

[edit] Johnny Lee Clary

Please note the links on the KKK article are almost all pro KKK! This is criminal. No wonder Clary is being deleted! Potters house 00:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC) Nick.

[edit] Get comments...

You seem to have contacted a bunch of admins. If you want to inform multiple admins at the same time, it's better to use the administrators' noticeboard. - Mgm|^(talk) 00:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Side note: Messages tend to be more effective when they are shorter. - Mgm|^(talk) 00:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

OK Sorry, I am new at this.

Cheers Nick. Potters house 00:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Nick. I don't think you've run afoul of a conspiracy, just the policies of Wikipedia. It's not about keeping Clary and related topics out, it's about remaining neutral, verifiable, and reliable. If you can write a good article that meets our policies (not always straightforward or easy for a newbie, especially on a topic that has already prompted admin action), it might have a chance. I am NOT giving you or Clary any sort of guarantee that a new article will be kept -- it might end up going through the Deletion process again -- but I think a new, thoroughly encyclopedic article written from scratch will at least give people a fresh look at the subject.

Please carefully read the policies at Wikipedia:Five pillars, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and pursue the many clarifying links from those pages if you are confused about anything. Take your time reading this stuff -- really understanding these policies is going to make a huge difference in how your article is accepted!

You can try writing a draft of an article in your userspace, for example, User:Potters house/Johnny Lee Clary, following all the advice at Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles and Wikipedia:Citing sources. Be sure not to copy text directly from any site, especially Clary's -- use the facts there, and use footnotes to cite the source of the facts, but write the sentences in your own words. Attribute all opinions to their source; otherwise be sure to write neutrally. Also be sure to include cited evidence about Clary's notability. Don't try to put pictures in now; if the article is kept, then you can ask for more advice on getting pictures with a proper license.

Keep working on the article until you feel it is finished, then ask me or other folks who have helped you before for advice on improving it (at Wikipedia:Requests for feedback, for example). Then invite the admin who deleted it before, and those who voted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johnny Lee Clary, to look at it again. Think about their comments carefully, and incorporate their suggestions. IF all goes well, they will agree that it will make a worthwhile article, and it can be moved to the main namespace. (I'd let an admin move it, to minimize confusion over the "should not be recreated" tag.)

I hope that helps, and good luck! — Catherine\^talk 02:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Johnny Lee Clary

In the future, it is a bad idea to randomly contact adminstrators as you did. Try Wikipedia:Mediation instead, and go to the pages pertaining to the deletion of the article, not just the talk page. In this case, I think it was wrong of you to create Johnny Clary and J L Clary, since it was a deliberate attempt to circumvent the deletion. However, if what you've told me and written on the talk page is true, it seems that there should be an article on him. Perhaps you should write a truly neutral article on him, explaining his significance in a way suitable for Wikipedia, not merely advertizing him. Instead of putting it on the Johnny Lee Clary page, you could just submit it to Tawker's talk page. If you want to, you could give me the draft aricle first.

On the other hand, "Johnny Lee Clary" as a phrase yields fewer than 600 Google hits, and "Johnny Clary" fewer than 100. By contrast, "David Wilkerson" yields nearly 300,000, lending some support to Tawker's assertion that Clary isn't significant enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. Still, if you have any third-party objective factual evidence that your claims about Clary are true, you should reference them in your draft article and they would override any Google-based assertions of irrelavence. LittleDan^talk 02:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suspicions vs. Observations

Please see my comments to your note at RE: Johnny Lee Clary - Please_help. You really need not invoke the specter of some mysterious conspiracy to explain past reactions to Mr. Clary. Please see more details at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/TheKingOfDixie where I spent hours putting together the self-defeating pattern of behavior that exemplified Mr. Clary's editing on Wikipedia. Unfortunately to little good effect (though I am not unmindful how maddening prior events may have been for Mr. Clary).

I will not be able to justify to you my 'credentials' (cough) as "not a racist", "not a KKK-supporter", "not a whatever else you might suspect", by any statements here. And with the privacy versus wacko-inspired attacks seen elsewhere on Wikipedia, I won't even try (it has proven to be dangerous to others to give out too much personally identifying information). However, you can read through my contributions and come to your own conclusions. Just as was the case for Special:Contributions/TheKingOfDixie. In my case I can only hope I do less damage to the causes I support (some of which are undoubtedly shared with Mr. Clary). Shenme 04:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I think I saw a note elsewhere where you felt some articles (KKK?) were distorted? Can you point me to a couple? I could monitor a couple for obvious vandalism, though factually I'm weak in the area, as I really do find all this painful from personal experience. And it gets so confusing, like coming across Nathan Bedford Forrest (see Nathan_Bedford_Forrest#Speech_to_the_Independent_Order_of_Pole_Bearers_Association). Good, bad, good, ???

[edit] Links

The KKK links are biased, see for example:

the first link is The History of the Original Ku Klux Klan - by an anonymous author sympathetic to the original Klan

This states that he is sympathetic with the original KKK.

Most of the others talk about the KKK in a good light, and seem to only talk about the early days of the Klan. Which is promotion. What about the murders bashings, intimidation etc. Most people don't see the KKK as an old school men’s club, but as a terror group.

I am not trying to be biased he, but I think that Johnny Clary’s site have allot more info and provides the balance. He was the LEADER of the KKK, not just some crony. Nick. Potters house 06:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John Clary

Hi, I've responded to your request for help. Please see the following pages:

• talk:Ed Poor
• talk:Johnny Lee Clary
• The Day I Met God
• talk:Ku Klux Klan

If your main concern is writing about Clary's 'conversion' from hate to 'Christian love', go for it. Try reading his 2500-word autobiography before writing anything else about him.

Regards, (former admin) --Uncle Ed 14:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk page spamming

You seem to be involved in a dispute over pages related to Johnny Lee Clary. If you're unsure about how to proceed, I would urge you very strongly to review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.

It is not appropriate to accuse other editors of 'racial discrimination' or engage in other personal attacks, nor should you be posting the same message to dozens of other editors' talk pages. Continuing to spam talk pages or post personal attacks on other contributors will result in a suspension of your editing privileges. You probably also owe Antaeus Feldspar an apology. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your request on my talk page

As mentioned above, spamming people page is usually considered poor form here. As a result I usually do not respond to the resquest in such posts. However, you did not request assistance witht the Wade Watts article, as a result I have compiled a list of sources that should confirm that Wade Watts is a notable figure by crossreferencing independnet sources with those of your friend. You can find these links in my sandbox for the next few days, after that they will be accessable through my sandbox's page history. Thanks. -JCarriker 13:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Johnny Lee Clary draft

see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Potters_house/Johnny_Lee_Clary

I know it needs work, citations, pitcures etc, but if you could help in any way that would be appreciated. Cheers Nick. Potters house 01:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted links

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.phptitle=User_talk:Antaeus_Feldspar&action=history This is his response. I noticed that he says that he has been accused before:

"I have been accused of being a "cult PR agent" by anti-cult activists and an anti-cult fanatic by cult supporters. I must be doing something right. Strange; one might conclude that I must enjoy working on cult articles, but such is not the case"

He doesn't want to talk about the issues but mearly posts short messages in the history.

Tillman who defends Ross seems to work for him, but that's ok, but not for neutral articles see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tilman look at his article contributions they are all against scientology, Rick Ross has had a recent lawsuit against them, check out his deletion selection on 1 August 2006 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20060804173200&limit=50&target=Tilman

See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rick_Ross_%28consultant%29&action=history

The link http://www.rrexposed.u2k.biz/ seems to be a problem but almost half of the anti PH links are nowhere near as good quality!

[edit] Image deleted

You wrote: If I have not provided enough information or given wrong information I will correct. Please state how to go about this, because Johnny Lee Clary has given me permission to use all the images on his site. If you need some type of varification for this contact me in my talk - cheers. Nick Potters house 01:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

What we need is a free license. It's not enough for the owner of this picture to let us use it: they must let it be used freely by anyone, and make derivative works from it. The free licenses we recommend are either public domain, GFDL, or a Creative commons license that doesn't limit to non-commercial use or disallow derivative works. Mangojuice^talk 14:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule at Potter's House Christian Fellowship. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

— Matt Crypto 20:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Block

"{{unblock|reason}}" I was blocked but I was set up. These guys have been continually deleting certain "poor quality" links but retain the ones that slander me and the church I attend. I have tried mediation but no one cared! To protect the article I kept reverting it back to how it was. I spend that much time just stuffing around with these people that I can never find time to read wiki policies or learn about this stuff. Why wont anyone help me! Look at the history I have tried endlessly for days to get mediation. THEY HAVE SITES UP THAT I AM A HOMOSEXUAL, WHY CAN'T I DELETE THEM!!! Potters house 21:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I have written REEMS of info on this and as far as I know have done everything right! Potters house 21:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you got my message but:

I am very tired of these two people. They seem to just follow me around and bully me. Look at all of our histories. I admit that I have eventually stooped to their level by going to all of their articles, but what else can I do? I have tried mediation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-08-07_The_Potter%27s_House

Look at my user talk. Look at the sites I have edited. The have deleted whole pages that I worked hard on. They harly ever talk in the talk page. AHHHHH I feel like I am a victim here! They put in heaps of "poor quality" links but delete my "poor quality" ones. It is biased! I have written about this for hour now and I know that they are just hoping that I will give up. I am getting sick of it. It is religious descrimination. They allow sites that link to pages saying that I am a Homosexual! I am a christian aspiring to be a minister, can you see why I am sick of the addition of the links - but I put up a site against their boss rick ross (the web site was actually made by the same guy slandering me, but this is the ony way I can prove that people are just plain biased against me and the Potter's House Church) which says pretty much the same sort of stuff.

Anyway. I have been going on about this issue for days now and am compleatly frustrated because no one mediated and the Admin notice board payed no attention to this. See what I resorted to last time with the Johnny Lee Clary article after they just Deleted the Wade Watts article!!

Same guys!

Is there some way of getting these people off my back. I am tired of going over and over the same issues making me look like the irrational one - which is what they want Potters house 21:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

This is the only place I can post. Matt said that I have been unblocked but I haven't.

It says: Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by Matt Crypto for the following reason (see our blocking policy): Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Potters house". The reason given for Potters house's block is: "WP:3RR". Your IP address is 58.165.189.77.

{{unblock}}

WHY?Potters house 01:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what that guy did but I am still blocked, perhaps he has put some other ban on me. I will put this back though

{{unblock}}

Potters house 07:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

{{unblock|reason}}

Look at the above read the links, HELP Potters house 07:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Nick, I unblocked your username last night, but it appears that your IP address was autoblocked. I've unblocked that as well, so you should be able to edit. — Matt Crypto 07:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

AHHHHHHHH Free at last! Potters house 07:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Please be aware that you may be perceiving your biases as neutral and attributing motives to editors acting in good faith. You are clearly an involved party and should exercise caution in editing this subject at all. Just zis Guy you know? 08:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Johnny Lee Clary.jpg

If it's a publicity photograph, it needs a fair use rationale. Furthermore, if you are the creator of the image, it must be released under a free license (fair use is not acceptable from creators of works). Thanks. theProject 19:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Pastor Wayman Mitchell.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Pastor Wayman Mitchell.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages 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 fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kimchi.sg 05:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disputes

Hi Potters house and thank you for contacting me about the Potter's House Christian Fellowship dispute. I think what you are running into are POV disputes. I am assuming you are a member of the Potter's House, and that should not prohibit you from editing the Potter's House article. Just try to remain neutral in your composition of the article. If you think some of the content of the article is inaccurate, then provide sources which may refute the content and put a note into the talk page. Make sure your sources are reliable (See WP:V and WP:RS) You can also use those policies to determine if what you believe is innacurate comes from a reliable source or not. (Note: In my opinion, even what Wikipedia considers a reliable source can also contain innacuracies.) If you're having problems with other users reverting your edits or removing material based on reliable sources, making uncivil statements, etc, then use the histories to view diff's (for example[1]) to document their edits that way you will have evidence to present in the mediation process. I noticed in the mediation page one user reponded in an uncivil manner immediately, his response is unacceptable and a violation of WP:AGF. I'm not an expert on Wikipedia, but I do have some experience and have been studying some of the social aspects of it since the middle of 2004. If I can't help you, you can ask for help at the Help Desk. Cheers! --ElectricEye (talk) 22:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Johnny Lee Clary

Hi. I think that this article is a dead loss. I voted to delete it because it appeared to be written by the man who is the subject of the article, not because the subject doesn't deserve an article. I think you'll have to give it time before anyone will allow the article to be re-created. - Richardcavell 10:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi there Tom

I noticed that you said on the talk in Johnny Lee Clary that you would be willing to help with an article or perhaps help with getting it out of its deletion tag. Any help would be appreciated. I have drafted it here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Potters_house/Johnny_Lee_Clary Nick. Potters house 06:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Potters. Sure I can try to help. I read the asrticle. It looks like a good start. If I were to edit, I would probably cut the article length in half to only include sourced material. It seems to read as a commentary. Anyways, isn't this the guy that was giving me fits over at the Tom Metzger article? Overall, looks good. I think I did see one editor who said it was to soon to re-add, but keep at it!! --Tom 16:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DRV on Clary

The DRV on Clary has permitted your recreation, and I have moved it into the article space; AfDing will not be automatic, but any editor may elect to send it to AfD, as usual. Your userpage on Clary was deleted after the move, as is also normal, because cross-namespace redirects are deletable under CSD R2. Best wishes, Xoloz 16:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

However, you owe Antaeus Feldspar an apology. This long remark (click here to read) which you broadcast to over a dozen user talk pages, is patently insulting. I didn't say anything about it when I first read it, because you were a Wikipedia newbie.

But I suggest you read Wikipedia:Avoid personal remarks and (for penance ;-) also WP:No personal attacks. After that, I'm sure a fine Christian gentleman like yourself will no exactly what to do.

Best regards, and good luck on your big article. --Uncle Ed 14:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, if you're not going to apologize can you at least give it a rest? You already won the vote on deletion, 15 to 3. How about taking the weekend off. --Uncle Ed 14:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Ed how about saying that to Feldspar? I have been very very resonanable and put up with his crap for months, I am sich of it. Sorry Ed you seem like a nice guy but you are not the one being deleted at every move. Potters house 14:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Warning

Some of your remarks at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johnny Lee Clary (2nd nomination) fall a long way short of civility. If you continue personalising the matter and insulting those who disagree with you, you will be blocked from editing. Just zis Guy you know? 14:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding your comments

I appreciate your efforts in trying to save your article from deletion, but that is NO excuse to start talking about the AfD for Johnny Lee Clary on the designated AfD page for Tilman Hausherr.

If you continue to do so, I will seek admin intervention upon on you, and you could possibly get banned from Wikipedia.

Note: I'm not sending this message to you only. I'm sending it to all involved parties.

--Nishkid64 21:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Johnny Lee Clary

I did read your talk page, and I know perfectly well what is going on. I even voted to keep the article because it passed WP:BIO and generated nearly 200,000 hits.

However, I'm still disappointed that you did not show the kind of civility and patience on the AfD page for Johnny Lee Clary or when you made AfD on Tilman Hausherr. For example, you immediately took out your anger on Feldspar and OhConfucious just because they did not support your views. You attacked people thinking they were neo-nazis or something. You also asked friends (i'm assuming you did) to join Wikipedia and vote to keep the article. If you read the guidelines, you'd know that AfD pages are discussions, not really votes. This is utterly disgraceful.

I know some of those people may have deleted the article because it may have racially offended their views (I'm not sure who or even if they did it for that reason), but nonetheless, the AfD will probably (as of right now) end up as a keep. I know that AfD's will constantly be brought up upon the article, and I ask you to please remain neutral, calm and peaceful with other Wikipedians.

As for the AfD's you made on Tilman Hausherr and other people, that is totally unacceptable. You did not prove valid reasons as to why you did not think they were notable. You just vented out your frustration of the JLC AfD on these other articles without considering the Wikipedia guidelines.

Trust me. There were much better ways in which you could have handled this situation.

You could have gone to Admin Intervention or Admin Noticeboard and requested help from administrators regarding people who were trying to sabotage your work.

I hope that after this AfD, you will try to defend your arguments in the future regarding JLC, in a calm, civilized manner. Being courteous and polite goes a long way in Wikipedia. An example can be seen here: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kpjas. At first, I was among many people who opposed Kpjas's RfA. If you go to my User talk:Nishkid64/Archive 2 (first message), you can see a fellow Wikipedia user (and administrator) kindly asked me to reconsider my opinion on Kpjas. I ended up changing my vote to Support, as did a dozen other people. This also applies to you. If you show decency and equality amongst your Wikipedia peers, you can definitely gain their support when you need it the most.

Hope you will think about what I said above.

P.S. I'd also appreciate it if you could keep religious views private for a while. It seems that they have been quite controversial here. However, remember to act in a civilized manner. Take a look at me...Christians took over India during the Victorian era and basically treated us like crap. Our people still feel the troubling effects of the British rule, but do you see me going all crazy on people like you? Nope.

--Nishkid64 23:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

You said: You could have gone to Admin Intervention or Admin Noticeboard and requested help from administrators regarding people who were trying to sabotage your work. I tried that a while back but no one has gotten back to me. You said "Hope you will think about what I said above." Yes and I appreciate you spending time to help me.

You said: "P.S. I'd also appreciate it if you could keep religious views private for a while. It seems that they have been quite controversial here. However, remember to act in a civilized manner. Take a look at me...Christians took over India during the Victorian era and basically treated us like crap. Our people still feel the troubling effects of the British rule, but do you see me going all crazy on people like you?"

I understand, most white anglo people call themselves Christians but are not, Jesus said to love you neighbor, bless your enemy etc. But apart from this I admire you and the way you behave towards Christians that is showing tolerance, but Feldspar doesn't do this to me. JLC is a one of the most notable Christians in Australia at the moment and we have to fight tooth and nail to get a page up on Wikipedia. Is this nothing short of religious discrimination? Potters house 23:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

No, it is not "nothing short of religious discrimination". At least some of those advocating deletion are Christians. Comments like "one of the most notable Christians in Australia" require concrete evidence. A notable Christian in Australia? Maybe. One of the most? What's your reliable secondary source for that? Guy 08:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MedCab James I of England case

Hi, I am going to be the mediator for the James I of England MedCab case and the discussion is going to start on the talk page. Also, could I ask your opinion on this version of the article? Addhoc 18:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Potters_house_small.jpg listed for deletion

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Johnny Lee Clary.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Johnny Lee Clary.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 09:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Potters House Christian Fellowship

I just recently read the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potters_House_Christian_Fellowship in the section criticism of the church there are several errors that do not represent the actual facts, in paragraph 2. Namely- "Further, supporters of the Potter's House allege that some critics have ulterior motives and have engaged in deceptive tactics to inflate their apparent numbers on the internet".

This statement has a bias in that it does NOT demonstrate or show the objections to the church are FROM former members including pastors. It also carries with it the assumption the critics are liars or deceivers which is slander and is not true and has not be proven. I think the fact that the majority of the objections are from eye witnesses themselves not the cult awareness groups, even Rick Ross interviews ex-members and gets the information directly from the people themselves. This is very relevant and should be placed within the section "critics of the church" to demonstrate the "neutrality" of the acticle. Furthermore links should be provided to a site I have looked over called the firstplumbline, which contains extensive "current up-to-date" information and resources including video and audio clips from the potters house preahers themselves. I also ask that lnks to discussion groups be added as further resoures the crackpots and escape from the fellowship. Please explain how come you think you can provide links to your OWN sites as references and resources and I not provide links to sites that are run by neutral parties.

I request that you allow me to keep te additions I have made to the acticle. I also ask in good faith and in your integrity that you give good reasons why the section should NOT be edited. Thank you Darren Smith.

Basically the links are slanderous. Also they are poor quality. There is enough information in the article to show both sides, there were compromises made and many links deleted on both sides. I could also include about 6 other links that directly expose Rick Ross, but if you read through the mediation case there was an agreement made with wikipedia admins, therefore for you to just add these links like you did is not in good faith. The article is neutral, unless you will stop at nothing but seeing every slanderous article about CFM linked to on wikipedia. Anyway, the sites have been deemed as poor quality, Hainings group is linked to in Ross' site anyway and people should be able to just "google" if they want more information. Please refrain from posting the links around also as you may be banned if you continue. (I have changed the ones posted here) Potters house 14:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The article in the section "criticism of the church" is not neutral and does not reflect the current status of the situation. Neither does it provide a neutral point of view. The reader has not been properly informed that much of the criticism has been from former members which the article section claims they have "deceptive" or hidden motives. The links to the cult awareness groups except for Rick Ross do not contain current up-to-date information as the it does on the firstplumbline site. Please refrain from editing my home page without discussing your concerns. I am well within the policy of wikipedia to display the firstplumbline on my homepage. I will call for mediation on this by third party users. User:Darrenss 9:59, February 2007

As stated above, the links are poor quality which has been established before in the mediation case. You would be better off trying to get Ross to include the links on his site, that is if he sees the links as viable links himself. The articles section "criticism of the church" is neutral and does reflect the current status of the situation. Wikipedia is not a place for the displaying of slanderous poor quality links, links which have been rejected in agreement with the mediation case http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-08-07_The_Potter%27s_House and thus should NOT be used on any article nor on your own personal page, to do so is violate the agreement in the mediation case. Once you have read through the entire mediation case you will understand why the article is way it is. You have not expressed exactly where the article is not neutral and also why the links should be permitted. After you have read the mediation, then you will be equipped to answer those questions. Potters house 02:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Darrenss

Hi there, I am resposible for the deletion of the links on Darrenss' home page, as the links he is propogating are slanderous links that have been deemed as poor quality. He is only concerned with slandering me and the church I attend. I request that you read the mediation case on this subject which is on the Potter's House Christian Fellowship.

Thanks and I hope we can work this out, I have fought tooth and nail to remove slanderous links to people who say I am a homosexual and am no longer a Christian. I may not be using correct protocal but these links were previously seen as poor quality. Potters house 03:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand your anger if someone were to say that about you, but then wouldn't it not also be a conflict of interest here then if you are directly involved with the said article? Anyway keep it on the discussion page till wiki says otherwise and an admin will take care of the user page, not a regular editor unless they give permission otherwise. But you can discuss it on his discussion page. --Xiahou 03:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I read the entire case and it was never solved or resolved. --"Forget it, you are not being co-operative, xo I will just go ahead and create the anti RR site myself. You can't say I didn't try to work through this! Bye Potters house 12:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks like this one is being worked on at the talk page. Props to Addhoc for his contributions. Closing case since it's stale and problems seem to be working out on the talk page. CQJ 17:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)"

so? It didn't get worked out just a discussion page compromise. I'd like to know how this is directly affecting you. Because if those links are about you then we definetly have a conflict of interest for this article.

Thanks, I would prefer to mediate or get an admin involved as you suggested. I hope that there is not a conflict of interest, I am involved in the church but that is why much of the article has been written, simply because I know alot about the church and its structure. Also Darren Smith is a former member of the church, i.e. he also has a barrow to push in a sense. I don't mind him having his say, but I to object to the inclusion of the poor quality links being placed on the article and also on the user page. I have at least 6-7 pages I could also add on the article in defense of claims by people like Darren, but one included a site about Rick Ross and was deemed as poor quality. The irony of it was that the man who made the anti Rick Ross site also made the anti Potter's House link that was permitted and was of lesser notoriety and quality. So in other words, Rick Ross supporters hate the links I want to put up, and fight against them, but the links Darren put up are of lesser quality and permitted because they don't affect Ross. That is why I previously mediated. I wouldn't mind having ALL links allowed, because I have links that show strong counter arguments, but Ross' friends won't allow them. It is a bit of a catch 22, but things were running smooth until Darren came along, obviously to push his anti Potter's House views. Anyway thanks for the help. Potters house 03:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

gotcha ok - --Xiahou 03:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Much was also written on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Potter%27s_House_Christian_Fellowship

Also I stated above that I wouldn't mind ALL links to be allowed, I suppose the one directly linking to the person who claims that I am a homosexual, watch pornography, and am no longer in the church, I would strongly protest. If it was allowed I would have to pursue it legally with Yahoo and Ken Haining the author, a situation of which I hope to avoid. Potters house 03:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

why wouldn't it be allowed. Its America land of the lawsuits. And if those things are said about you and are not true then go for it. Though again now my interest is piqued again that if the links are about you and not the article then the should obviousl be deleted but if they are about you as in you are in the article. Basically I don't want to ask or pry for your real name but if you are directly involved in the church enough to be a target of links allowed or your real name is in the article then it is a conflict of interest. --Xiahou 03:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand. You were discussing it with me, fine. I mentioned before you can't delete off his user page but can discuss this with him on the articles discussion page or his discussion page no problem its what they are for. And you went and deleted his user page again. Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Some of your recent edits, such as those you made to User:Darrenss, have been considered unhelpful or unconstructive and have been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Xiahou 03:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

== Image:Foundations of Pentecostal Theology.jpg listed for deletion ==

[edit] VANDALISM

You have removed pertinent and sourced information from the article Wayman Mitchell. This should not be removed because it has been reported in a reputable external source. Removal of such information may constitute deliberate bias on your part. If you continue to remove this information, I will report you for vandalism. --One Salient Oversight 22:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

It is not good timing. I am awaiting mediation with Darrenss over the inclusion of links, did he put you up to this? If so, it is only confusing the matter. Potters house 00:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• Darren didn't put me up to this, but I have had some problems when editing Potters House articles in the past. I would agree with Anton Hein at Apologetics Index that Rick Ross is probably not a good source to use in critical discussions of the Potter's House, but other verifiable and reputable critical links should be. --One Salient Oversight 05:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• • And that's fine I don't mind the inclusion of links as long as there is no bias in who can include them. In the past links I have been of similar quality etc, but have been disallowed because the people supported Rick Ross. So we had it out in mediation. A compromise was found but Darrenss insists on allowing the links back onto the page. If that is allowed then links showing both sides of the story should also be allowed. Also some links claim that I am a fag and have left the church. I personally think that they are in bad taste, but if they are included, I should be able to provide rebuttals, creating neutrality. It was fine until Darrenss came along, he seems to have a personal vendetta against me, I knew him when he was in the church and now he claims that I am a Jerk and that I have the mind of an insect etc. I am waiting for mediation. If sites are allowed that say I am a fag or am no longer in CFM then other sites claiming Ross to be a fag etc, should be allowed, otherwise it is biased. Potters house 06:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I read about that conflict. I have never been a member of the church but one member gave me an exceptionally hard time a couple of years ago when I was editing the article. --One Salient Oversight 07:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of Christianity Tag from Potter's House Article

If you look at the tag you'll notice that it contains some pretty important parts of Christian doctrine, eg Trinity. It also contains info about different types of Christianity, one example of which is Pentecostalism. If you go to the Pentecostalism page you'll see that it has a Christianity Tag. Assemblies of God does not have a Christianity Tag. If the Potter's house article is to have a Christianity tag then thousands of articles should have it in order to be fair. I think the tag should be used judiciously. --One Salient Oversight 07:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My fault??

How about you stop blaming me for everything under the sun. <G>

If you noticed I didn't touch the potters house article, neither am I responsible for any other people that do things you don't agree with. Talk about having a persecution complex.Darrenss 10:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Let me also remind you of this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility

If there is any disagreement over edits you are required to discuss them first before any changes are made. I have discussed them and am well within my rights to make changes under wikipedia regulations, so far you've not answered the issues. I suggest you join the discussion. Admistrators told me to discuss the issues first before making any more edits, which I've done. You however continue to edit as if the rules don't apply to you. You are welcome to voice your views but you must by reasonable discussion prove your points are valid, verifiable, neutral and direct to the point of the issue itself. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NPOV http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research

Please join the discussion with this in mind. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Potter%27s_House_Christian_Fellowship Thanks.Darrenss 10:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation Potters House article

Have you taken steps for mediation yet? According to the dispute resolution policy its best to seek informal mediation by third parties first. What do you you want to do? Invite another editor to help negotiation first or do you want to go straight to a formal mediation. Why don't we ask an editor for third party advice on this disscussion? We could ask

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sfacets

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Matt_Crypto

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Crested_Penguin

What do you think?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Negotiation Darrenss 06:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I think any of those guys are good. I also think that while we are at it we resolve our personal conflicts also. Please keep in prayer. Potters house 06:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)