User talk:65.190.64.197

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please do not remove content from Wikipedia; it is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Vengeful Cynic 15:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Could you please either justify or stop your continual removal/attack of critics on Longview Baptist Temple --Vengeful Cynic 22:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi! I understand that you are not familiar with Wikipedia's process, and so you may be making mistakes out of ignorance. Regardless, your behavior with regards to the Longview Baptist Temple page is inappropriate. Please stop, or you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. For more information on how to participate, you might read Wikipedia's 5 pillars. --William Pietri 01:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Longview Baptist Temple

Hi. For some months now, you've been editing Longview Baptist Temple and other editors have been rolling back your changes. This isn't fun for anybody. Why don't you discuss your views on the article talk page so that we can some to some consensus? Thanks, --William Pietri 17:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Why do you allow the tripe from Spurgen to remain Here is what he has posted


Longview Baptist Temple has been criticized harshly by former member and Texas Baptist College graduate James Spurgeon. Spurgeon accuses the church of being preoccupied with its numbers of converts and legalism, and accuses Dr. Gray of assuming excessive authority over the details of churchgoers' lives

Why is this allowed to stay posted? YET this is not? James Spurgeon has little standing with most Independent Fundamental baptists. He is known for being part of a new movement in the IFB sect. They are refered to as INTERNET IFB. They are more concerned with building blogs,forums,email lists,ect.ect.than they are with building a New Testament Baptist Church PLEASE explain the difference in these post? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.190.64.197 (talk • contribs) 00:58, 12 June 2006 UTC.

These are excellent questions that should be discussed on the talk page of the article. Please register an account and take some time to read through the welcome pages. Then go to the article talk page and express your concerns. We all want to build a high-quality, neutral, verifiable encyclopedia, and so welcome your contributions. However, we proceed by consensus, so you'll have to work with your fellow editors to find something that everybody can live with. --William Pietri 02:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reverted edit to Longview Baptist Temple

I've reverted your edit to Longview Baptist Temple as I was unable to substantiate whether it was fact. Please use {{fact}} after a punctuation point (e.g. full-stops, commas, etc) if you believe the preceding sentence or part-sentence to require a reliable source to back it up, or move it to the article's talk page if you think the statement/sentence to be false detailing your problems with it. Also, when editing, following Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy, and backing up edits that could be construed as wrong or unreliable by using citations from reliable sources will help make Wikipedia - and your edits - better, and your contributions may eventually earn you a barn star. If you don't already do so, using edit summaries on your contributions will help other Wikipedians see at a glance what your edit was about. If you're able to neutrally rephrase and reference your edit, please do so. If you think I was wrong in reverting this edit, please contact me on my talk page. Thanks, --15:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)Vengeful Cynic

Hi. I've reverted again. As I mention above, potentially contentious changes to contentious articles should be discussed so that we can come to consensus on a neutral, verifiable article. Please join us in discussing the changes on the talk page. William Pietri 14:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I have reverted your changes again, and will continue to do so until you persuade your fellow editors that your change is suitable for an encyclopedia. Perhaps you could start a discussion on the article's talk page? We all agree that the article is in need of improvement, and I'm sure there are more productive ways you could spend your time on Wikipedia. I'm also puzzled that a follower of a carpenter would knock somebody for being a housebuilder. Is that really the impression you think people should have of the article's subject? Thanks, William Pietri 08:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)