Talk:Steve Gaines (pastor)

message: The section on Controversy about the web site and the mishandling of conduct should remain deleted under the guidelines provided in Wikipedia's policy on Biographies of Living Persons. The burden of proof on keeping these sections is on keeping them not deleting them. As the policy clearly states, "Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Aletheiaeleutheroseihymas (talk) 23:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The sources here are newspaper articles from a major city's most prominent daily newspaper.  A reliable source by any measure.  As far as I can tell, nothing in this article is sourced directly to the website in question.  Please note that stating that the website existed is not the same as referencing material in this article to said website.  The sections you continue to blank are well-sourced.  Please describe why the Commercial Appeal is not a reliable source for the information found in this article. Interwebs (talk) 23:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

text: Furthermore, you have not explained why you continue to delete the "Handling of minister misconduct" subsection, when it does not reference the website at all.  That makes it difficult to assume good faith on your part. Interwebs (talk) 23:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

text: The source appears to be a legit online source, based in Memphis, complete with weather and sports. Your reason for removing sourced material however are questionable, and as such can be seen to be vandalism. You have already rolled through 3RR, I suggest you re-consider reverting again until you can explain your motives. Darrenhusted (talk) 00:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

text: Except that there is nothing wrong with the sourced section as it was before you rolled through 3RR, and the exact same source is used in the church article. Regardless, you rolled though five reverts in an hour and ignored a 3RR warning, so I have reported you to the 3RR board, the standard is 24hours block for a first offence. Darrenhusted (talk) 00:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I notice that there are some very serious claim and accusation as regards a living person in this section, all the comments are cited to one small paper, the Commercial appeal, is this the only source of these accusations? Off2riorob (talk) 22:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to be honest, back in September I was fighting a fire on this, trying to keep some of the content on the page while some SPAs were trying to blank legit concerns. If the are no further sources and the claim is still fairly contentious (though I remember the paper being small but legit) then I have no problem with it being removed. Darrenhusted (talk) 22:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I will remove it and bring it here and wait for discussion, thanks Darren. Off2riorob (talk) 22:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

text: A little bit of discussion would be better than simply stuffing it back in is not going to resolve peoples issues with the content, I think the details about the other person are not needed, this is not about him at all and no charges were ever brought, were they? Off2riorob (talk) 14:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No idea.  I somewhat understand the concern about naming the minister, but given that he was named in multiple reliable sources in this matter, removal of his name seems over cautious.  Nonetheless, I am not opposed to your rewording of the subsection and am satisfied by the result. Interwebs (talk) 14:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

text: Great, I would have held a different position if there was any charges, I can't even find a report to the police and any details of a police investigation, perhaps you know of one, but no matter anyway, I am also satisfied that it is better, I realize the name is in the citations but as there were not charges then we don't need to repeat it, so.. regards. Off2riorob (talk) 15:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The section on minister conduct 

message: I have moved this here as it is very controversial content about a living person and is all cited to the one local paper, also there are some excessive allegations and yet there appears to have been no charges at all.please discuss here, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 22:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Handling of minister misconduct