User talk:Mark Osgatharp

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Hello

I have anonymously edited a few Wikipedia articles over the past few months. Most recently I made some major changes to the article on Baptists. I registered this evening and hope to make some further refinements to that article, and maybe some others, in the future. Mark Osgatharp 07:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edits without consensus

Mark - your recent edits to Baptist introduce a POV that takes the article in a different direction than has been decided by consensus in the talk pages and in the long history of edits and reversions. Please refrain from making edits that assert only one perspective and make sweeping changes that haven't been discussed first. Thank you. HokieRNB 16:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Mark, thanks for your response. I do agree that Wikipedia editors need to be bold, and for the most part don't need permission to make edits. However, when an article such as Baptist has such a long history of refining and much discussion behind it, it does not serve the greater community to continue to assert one specific point of view. Consensus, in a general sense, is achieved when the maximum number of people agree with the process by which a decision was arrived at. Even if you hold a minority view (such as with the successionist view of Baptist origins), you can agree that the word "Baptist" includes more than that understanding and an encyclopedic article needs to reflect that. HokieRNB 21:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent edits

Thank you for experimenting with the page Baptist on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Dfrg.msc 23:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but as evidenced by the diff: [1] it did look like vandalism. Cheers, Dfrg.msc 01:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course Mark, I'm happy to explain. This is how it looked to be vandalism to me (I of course refer to Line: 201):

• It was an un-sourced edit to an article which gets quite a lot of Vandalism
• Your account name has less than 50 edits to it
• You replaced a re-direct with "sodomy" which is a hit word on the vandalism filter

I apologize for any concern this has caused you. To improve my Vandalism fighting I showed the diff to another editor, he agreed that at first glance it did look like vandalism. Regards, Dfrg.msc 05:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)