User talk:Lyonscc

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Hank Hanegraaff Edits

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Hank Hanegraaff. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism. If you insist on continuing in this behavior, as noted here and above, you risk being temporarily or permanently prevented from editing the Wikipedia. Furthermore, refrain from making false allegations based on your emotions. Emotionalizing is not evidence. You might want to look up the meaning of the word evidence so that you don't repeatedly forget.Firestar777 (talk) 10:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Firestar, your edits are all in violation of WP:NOR, WP:V, etc. If you insist on making these changes w/o discussion (such as inserting the Armenian/Calvin debate where it has nothing to do with the notability of Hanegraff), you will be reported to admins.--Lyonscc (talk) 12:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] EC

Hi. I am very pleased that you've added your expertise to the article. I finally think that some progress can be made. I myself haven't felt that I know enough to contribute in any substantial way other than to try to reign in some of Will's more impulsive ideas. He will be working on Gen Orth. You seem to have a more strategic approach. Please let me know if there is something specific I can help with. Thanks again. Affinity likely •Hello• 23:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Wikipedia categorization

Hello, I noticed you've reverse or nullified some of the (incomplete) subcategorizations I've attempted in Category:Christian theology. As this category balloons in size, it becomes progressively less useful for navigation; moving articles into subcategories helps the end user, especially the non-expert, see the "big picture" better. Please read WP:CAT. -choster (talk) 18:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Erwin McManus reversions

It is not clear you are following guidlines in a consistent way. You removed clearly sourced material for "Lack of documentation"; An entire section was removed for "No original research" when all citations fall well within the "self-published source" (WP:SELFPUB). Any research shows this material to be the most prominent and lasting statements from this subject.

What is your goal in removing this material? It seems you have already been warned regarding unreasonable edits.

Please, refrain from edits that do not follow Wikipedia guidlines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Usernow (talk • contribs) 20:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The removal for NOR is based upon the choice selection of quotes to give a specific impression (to guide the reader to a conclusion) - which IS Original Research. Please discuss these on the talk page before adding them back. Additionally, I would note that when you remove spurious material of questionable value - primarily added to "warn" people about the subject of a biography - you are bound to get complaints from the rabid fundies that stuck it in there in the first place.--Lyonscc (talk) 05:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


Actually, Lyonscc, after reading many of your edits I have come to better understand your approach. Some of the history at first seemed questionable, but now as I come to better understand methods, I see the efforts made to improve entries. I also agree with the removal of the Controversy Section. Nihiletnihil, however has left some inaccuracies in the information taken from sources used. Particularly, around the "founding" of Mosaic. I will clean this up as I can. --Usernow(talk) 04:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)