Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Pravknight

message: In case you didn't know the first edit was a copyedit for proper grammar, and an effort to eliminate some weasel words. "Progressive," progressive to whom, I know folks who would call what you would say is progressive "neo-barbarianism" because of its manners and values.
Progressive is a weasel word.
Also, using which instead of that is bad grammar.
I guess you want passive voice in the article too because that's precisely what you have below. I changed it to give it active voice.
"One conference speaker criticized by Kurtz is Katherine Yurica, who has written about the rise of Dominionism as a theocratic tendency in the Christian Right. Yurica responded to Kurtz, saying she has not used the term "Christian Fascism" in her writings. Yurica has noted fascistic tendencies in Christian Right Dominionism, but she does not consider the Christian Right to be "Christian."  	+  	Kurtz criticizes conference speaker Katherine Yurica, whose writings allege Dominionism's rise in the Christian Right has a theocratic tendency. Yurica responded to Kurtz, saying that she has not used the term "Christian Fascism" in her writings. Yurica has noted fascistic tendencies in Christian Right Dominionism, but she does not consider the Christian Right to be "Christian."
			
- 	Christian conservatives, however, are not the only people who suggest that some criticism of dominionism is hyperbolic. Even some progressive researchers warn of the tendency. 	+ 	Christian conservatives, however, are not the only people who suggest that some criticism of dominionism is hyperbolic. Liberal researchers have also warned of the tendency.
- 	Ellis Henican, "A spiritual olive branch for the far-right faithful," Newsday, May 1, 2005. For example, two progressive websites that challenge the Christian Right but urge respectful rhetoric are Talk to Action and Campaign to Defend the Constitution"
The only reason FeloniousMonk has asked for a RFC for this section is what I added, although well-cited, undermines the negative viewpoint he by admission above seeks to present about Dominionism. What is so wrong with accurately portraying what the Dominionists themselves believe?
The fact is there was no established consensus in this article, with the exception of a group of people who have an established track record for picking edit wars.
I didn't post anything looking for an edit war. My edits conformed with the written rules, and I checked them myself before posting.
I think this comment "weakening, discrediting the viewpoint that Dominionism is an actual issue, concern" shows that FeloniousMonk is interested in POV editing aimed at advancing a Left-wing POV, instead of
allowing a frank discussion of all perspectives on the issue. The concern about "Dominionism" is a POV issue because a plurality of Americans likely would side with the moderate Dominionists on the permissability of religion in society and government.
What use is it to censor court decisions the Dominionists cite in their own defense, except to advance a secularist POV article?
--Pravknight 21:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see WP:TE#Characteristics_of_problem_editors, specifically, You often find yourself accusing or suspecting other editors of "suppressing information", "censorship" or "denying facts".  and You repeatedly undo the "vandalism" of others. .  KillerChihuahua?!? 10:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV editing

message: Moved from the main page:
None of these uncommented diffs provides "evidence showing that two users tried and failed to resolve the same dispute". One of them shows FM telling Pravknight to stop editing - rather than offering to work together to resolve the dispute. Another is FM simply mentioning the 3RR rule. 
*Then Jim writes, I do not need a friggin editorial/dissertation left on my user page. Take it to the appropriate talk page. As for your accusation of POV pushing, pot, meet shiny kettle. What part of this is "trying to resolve"?  
*Only Flonight's diff shows evidence of trying - but it doesn't show failing. 
So this RFC should be deleted at the end of the 48 hour period. --Uncle Ed 17:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, there's been no shortage of people trying to get Pravknight from violating WP:NPOV, WP:POINT and WP:AUTO. FeloniousMonk 20:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text: NOTE: diffs cited in an RFC need comments, as the raw URL provides no context or explanation. (Uncle Ed 17:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ed's objections to certification of dispute 

message: , located in PA as well, is picking up where Pravknight left off. FeloniousMonk 18:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anon continuing the pattern