User talk:Sweetmoose6
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] The Torch
Hi, thanks for your contributions. I have nominated this for deletion after you removed my proposed deletion; please don't take this personally. Can you please demonstrate the claims you make on the page so they can be verified, or demonstrate the notability of this publication in a verifiable way? If you can do so I will be happy to withdraw my nomination. Akihabara 05:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- Hi, I'm willing to err on the side of keep too, but give me something to believe in. See WP:NOTABILITY for Wikipedia's criteria. Note I tried to find one of the awards you listed, as I mentioned in the AfD, but the award page didn't list The Torch, which didn't help. Akihabara 15:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] US News rankings for=
i forgot what school this was in reference to. the "three tiers" thing is referring to the fact that US News got rid of the 2nd tier, and made it a part of the 1st tier. two years ago, there were 50 rankings in the 1st tier. now there is 100 in the 1st tier. from there it skips to 3rd tier. So now, there's a 1st tier, a 3rd tier, and 4th tier. it's pretty stupid, huh. With the comparison to other schools in the same tier, it seems silly. the author is apparently trying to dilute what he/she believes to be the stigma of a third tier ranking by equating the school with other institutions that might be familiar to the reader. what objective standard is there to include some schools in the comparison (that make this school look good) but exclude others (that make the school look bad)? such a selective comparison might be appropriate for a school brochure or an ad, but definitely not for an encyclopedia. did i miss anything, i'm not sure, let me know. -Taco325i 04:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Some of your recent edits, such as those you made to Homeschooling, 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. Darentig 19:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know why you chose to re-edit my edit. I chose to make corrections because and only because there are so many churches and church leaders asking what happened and why...and as someone who watched the entire thing unfold ringside, I think it is important...not because of sides...but to illustrate what infighting and especially airing your family business online and in the media WILL do to your church.
Until your post, there had been no GBC entry. My edits were not meant to be at all inflammatory but rather more factual.
- the church is no longer by Wikipedia's definition (more than 2000 in weekly attendance) a mega church. I guess if you only want to post quantitative facts then you could post that it used to have three services pre-vote and now only has two or that the contemporary service went from being the largest service in the church and needing extra seats weekly to being all but empty and having everyone fit in just a few isles (all you have to do is visit on a Sunday to factualize that).
- the article from the Commercial Appeal is no longer linkable so that is why I placed the whole article on there (i know it was large but i thought it to be important in telling the story)
- where are you getting your 150-7000 fact from? All the information I have read has the growth of Dr. Story's tenure to be closer to 5 or maybe 6 thousand.
-Dr. Story's comments were much more than just "absolutely an abandonment of everything Baptists are."...and the point that he made them as a guest and invitee to a publicized church event was paramount. As to whether or not his comments were inflamatory or not, they have already been published as public and national record. I think if you are going to list that Dr. Shaw is going to be "marred with ..." then you need to do the same with Dr. Story's legacy being marred by his inflammatory comments.
- I to am sure the church has had many controversies over the last 160 years but you have to admit that none of them was anywhere close in the magnitude of this one. Its like saying that you shouldn't talk more about Hiroshima because there have been other explosions in the history of the world.
- as far as quantifiable numbers are concerned, as a former member who watched this thing go down first hand and kept all the information both online and written articles, I can tell you for a fact, and have the bulletins to back it up, that as of May 1, 2006 there were more than 30 full time ministers on staff and as of September 1, 2006 there were at least 20 less including but not limited to all 5 student pastors, 4 of 5 children pastors, all 6 of the 7 leadership team members, all 3 worship leaders, and the head of the counseling ministry. I think this constitutes the use of the word "many", or "most", or even "a bunch of". If you post the numbers of 7,00 members in your article then all you have to do is subtract the number currently listed on the back of any bulletin which hovers around 1,800 - 2,000, give or take, to see that once again the use of the word "many" is quite viable. I think the numbers are notable to help present the average reader with the scope of the aftermath.
- just in case you want to add it in...the reconciliation group was called Peace Maker Ministries
- you might want to also add that savegbc.com has evolved into a book that can be purchased as a plan to win back your church. www.gbcsaved.com
- having seen all this first hand, I'm sure that I might come off as slightly biased...but I think it is important to list as much as possible because this is among the first church disagreements(which in light of Bellevue, first Jacksonville, and others is now becoming common place) in which the tactic of web blogs, upstart nonprofit organizations, town hall meetings, mail outs and phone calls, and negative media attention was used to achieve the goal. I believe that due to the perceived "success" of SaveGBC, others are going to think this tactic an viable option. There was much coverage of the "fight" but not much about the aftermath. Disgruntled church members need to understand that getting your way at all costs may not bring the long term results they might hope for. Infact it might destroy everything they thought they were fighting for in the first place.
thanks for your time and consideration
Also my last concern is that the recent edit seemed to have a slightly negative bias toward Germantown Baptist.
[edit] DO OVER
Thanks for letting me know why you chose to re-edit my edit. I chose to make corrections because and only because there are so many churches and church leaders asking what happened and why...and as someone who watched the entire thing unfold ringside, I think it is important...not because of sides...but to illustrate what infighting and especially airing your family business online and in the media WILL do to your church.
Until your post, there had been no GBC entry. My edits were not meant to be at all inflammatory but rather more factual.
- the church is no longer by Wikipedia's definition (more than 2000 in weekly attendance) a mega church. I guess if you only want to post quantitative facts then you could post that it used to have three services pre-vote and now only has two or that the contemporary service went from being the largest service in the church and needing extra seats weekly to being all but empty and having everyone fit in just a few isles (all you have to do is visit on a Sunday to factualize that).
- the article from the Commercial Appeal is no longer linkable so that is why I placed the whole article on there (i know it was large but i thought it to be important in telling the story)
- where are you getting your 150-7000 fact from? All the information I have read has the growth of Dr. Story's tenure to be closer to 5 or maybe 6 thousand.
-Dr. Story's comments were much more than just "absolutely an abandonment of everything Baptists are."...and the point that he made them as a guest and invitee to a publicized church event was paramount. As to whether or not his comments were inflamatory or not, they have already been published as public and national record. I think if you are going to list that Dr. Shaw is going to be "marred with ..." then you need to do the same with Dr. Story's legacy being marred by his inflammatory comments.
- I to am sure the church has had many controversies over the last 160 years but you have to admit that none of them was anywhere close in the magnitude of this one. Its like saying that you shouldn't talk more about Hiroshima because there have been other explosions in the history of the world.
- as far as quantifiable numbers are concerned, as a former member who watched this thing go down first hand and kept all the information both online and written articles, I can tell you for a fact, and have the bulletins to back it up, that as of May 1, 2006 there were more than 30 full time ministers on staff and as of September 1, 2006 there were at least 20 less including but not limited to all 5 student pastors, 4 of 5 children pastors, all 6 of the 7 leadership team members, all 3 worship leaders, and the head of the counseling ministry. I think this constitutes the use of the word "many", or "most", or even "a bunch of". If you post the numbers of 7,00 members in your article then all you have to do is subtract the number currently listed on the back of any bulletin which hovers around 1,800 - 2,000, give or take, to see that once again the use of the word "many" is quite viable. I think the numbers are notable to help present the average reader with the scope of the aftermath.
- just in case you want to add it in...the reconciliation group was called Peace Maker Ministries
- you might want to also add that savegbc.com has evolved into a book that can be purchased as a plan to win back your church. www.gbcsaved.com
- having seen all this first hand, I'm sure that I might come off as slightly biased...but I think it is important to list as much as possible because this is among the first church disagreements(which in light of Bellevue, first Jacksonville, and others is now becoming common place) in which the tactic of web blogs, upstart nonprofit organizations, town hall meetings, mail outs and phone calls, and negative media attention was used to achieve the goal. I believe that due to the perceived "success" of SaveGBC, others are going to think this tactic an viable option. There was much coverage of the "fight" but not much about the aftermath. Disgruntled church members need to understand that getting your way at all costs may not bring the long term results they might hope for. Infact it might destroy everything they thought they were fighting for in the first place.
thanks for your time and consideration —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sookiedog (talk • contribs) 00:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Homeschooling
---Which parts did you think were propaganda? I thought, rather, it was completely fair to both sides. You can't sanitize issues by mixing the true concerns of public educators with general concerns. I picked out the two key issues: money and control, which are at the heart of just about every decision made. User:Sweetmoose6
- As I said, the Criticism section is for listing criticisms. It is completely appropriate to have a section that list the criticisms just an most W articles have if the topic bears it out. I do not agree with any of the criticisms, and I think they're all pretty silly to boot, but it is accepted protocol. Look at it this way, Homeschooling critics actually make themselves look pretty silly, without their criticisms even being answered.
- The article MUST maintain NPOV, MUST be encyclopedic in character and content, and any additions MUST be citable. We've come too far with this article to start backing down on any of these central Wikipedia tenets. Darentig 16:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Jerry mooney
What are you referencing in SEC files about Jerry Mooney? All the information in there is that he was CEO or had this position or that position. You need 1 as a verifiable reference not every single 10K that his companies filed. Regarding the spam, I deleted his law firm, which is a commercial link, as well as the amazon.com link. If that book has information about him, its good enough to footnote it and cite it in the article.
Here is information about how to cite the articles citing cources and the external link policy.
