User talk:69.144.40.33

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Gerald Flurry

I'm sorry if this process seems frustrating. I am not an administrator. I came across the article while searching for vandals. I could have marked the article for deletion as an attack article, however, I decided to see if it could be rewritten to be acceptable.

The two biggest problems I see with the article as written is that it is not written from a neutral point of view (see, WP:NPOV) and that it is not properly referenced, leading someone to suspect that the article is original research (which is not allows. See WP:OR).

I have started to set it up like a "proper" article. Notice how I have referenced the police report and court docket. This is a useful format for linking in sources without breaking up the narative. As for citations, we normally don't want to see the entire citation -- just the reference link. See if you can do that for the middle part I've discussed on the article talk page. I'll go through and clean up anything, but I really don't know what you are trying to say.

Finally, normal biographies in Wikipedia have some back facts at the beginning, such as birth date, education, etc. When I don't see that, it normally send up a red flag that maybe the article is just an attack article. That you have deleted nearly everything positive reinforces that impression. You can either work to improve the article or someone will eventually mark it for deletion.

While is may not seem like it, I'm trying to help. Ted 06:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry I wasn't clear earlier. I took out the irrelevant Dell computer link from one citation and remarked that as needing a citation. For the others, I said I would try to find the information in the links. I only recently got back to this article and really can't find the information in the links provided. In addition, I have a hard time justifying why some of those points make his church a cult. Show me where to find the information. I have already stated I find the website unreadable, and it doesn't have a search engine.

There are basically three alternatives here. 1) I leave and take the article off my watch list. It is very possible the article would be deleted as an attack article. 2) I delete everything that is unverified, which is what a normal editor would do. You will, I presume put it back. Eventually, I'll grow tired of the game and leave. See (1) for the likely result. 3) You help me find the information and I'll figure out a way to put it in the article -- if it is verifiable and relevant.

It is clear that you have an agenda for this article. You want it to expose Gerald Flurry and his church. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. If you persist in this idea, you will only end up frustrated. Sorry. Ted 04:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


Just because YOU don't see the relevance, does not mean it is not relevant. I am not asking Wikipedia to be a soapbox, I only want it to reflect the truth, and not lies. If I give a reference link, it is not my job to pull out the quotes for you and babysit your reading. I have given you links and now you want me to link you to exact quotes, in some cases this is not possible. I guess you will end up putting back the original article so that more people will be abused by Flurry and his gang. that's you're lookout, I've tried and you have cut me off at the pass over and over. I'm done with this charade called "WIKI" Obviously, honesty is not one of it's strong suits. 69.144.40.33 04:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, let's look at your latest additions. For verification on the marriage, you list Brian Davis. You may know Brian Davis and, for you, this reminds you of his situation. This name means nothing to me. It doesn't verify anything. Is there anything that allows an ignorant reader (me, for one) to look at the citation and understand what happened? It is similar to someone asking if Jesus taught forgiveness and giving that person the entire New Testament as a reference. Sure, it is there, but we can be more helpful by pointing out book and verse. If that is too much to ask, then I guess we are at an end. Ted 04:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)