Talk:Shubal Stearns

message: Excessive glorification. Wikipedia sticks to neutral tone. `'Míkka>t 19:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree.  If you can't substantiate this accusation with some concrete evidence, it remains your personal, subjective, POV. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please look at other wikipedia articles. You cannot throw around statements like "profound impact on much of population". Please see the guideline WP:PEACOCK. - 7-bubёn >t 17:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Finally you respond!  But that is intended as a factual statement.  Stearns' preaching had a profound impact in much of the population; were it not for him, the Baptist faith would not be the largest church in the Southern United States to this day. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have now changed the word "remarkably" since this word can be construed as a subjective pov, but I stand by the factuality of the remainder of the article. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Tone

message: Note that there has been a link, visible by clicking "show" in the above under "Assessment comments", to the page Talk:Shubal Stearns/Comments (still a redlink as of yet) for use of the Christianity wikiproject.  I just wanted to put the link out here where more people could see it. Regards, Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assessment comments 

message: Please don't remove tags until the indicated problems are resolved. - 7-bubёn >t 17:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: SemBubenny, the only problem you have indicated is that you don't like the factual statement that the had a "profound impact" on Christianity in the Southern US.  Since he undeniably did have a profound impact, as anyone familiar with the subject can aver, and since you you are hardly taking part in any discussion here other than to drive-by every six months or so, I'm removing the inappropriate tags.  Please stick to subjects in which you have expertise, or have done a modicum of research on,  and refrain from using wikipedia as a battleground or simply for provoking other editors. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please follow to wikipedia rules: (1) provide references to text whenever required, (2) write articles in neutral tone (3) don't inslt other wikipedians. (4) wikipedia is ancyclopedia which anybody can edit. - 7-bubёn >t 16:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: One more revert, and I am reporting you to admins for dealing with your inappropriate behavior. - 7-bubёn >t 16:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Please do.  Where do you derive your supposed authority over me from?  It is clear that you are merely a provocateur who enjoys quarreling and fomenting disputes.  You have not explained these tags, have not responded to my request for explanation, thus they will be removed until you explainm specifically what you think the problem is so it can be rectified if there is one.  It's kind of hard to fix the problem if you refuse to explain it, and you seem to know nothing at all about Shubal Stearns. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Where do I refer to my authority over you? I refer to the authority of wikipedia rules.  The tags are self-explanatory: (1) there is not a single inline citation in the article. (2) excessive glorification is not in the style of wikipedia, please read WP:PEACOCK. - 7-bubёn >t 17:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I dispute that there is any excessive glorification, and the onus is on you to show that there is any.  Thus far, you have utterly failed to do so.  If you are not willing to specifically discuss the facts of the article, or if you know nothing about the subject, your presence here is merely disruptive. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously, you are a person with a certain predisposition to the subject of the article, therefore you are closing blind eye to such things as: "remarkably successful ministry is inextricably intertwined", "profound impact in planting the seeds", "His style of preaching became the model for many other preachers", "this 'outpouring' swiftly became a flood that spread from Sandy Creek throughout all parts of the southern frontier." This is not what is called "neutral tone". Instead of butchering and article about a person obviously respected by some, I merely indicated the problems, so that people who know the subject may fix them in  a respectful way, your choice was a crusade of character assassination in the worst traditions of religious intolerance.  - 7-bubёn >t 17:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: When you place a tag, you are expected to explain what your specific concerns are.  Anybody can tag any article, but if you refuse to explain, you shouldn't be surprised that it is removed.  You have now finally listed some of your specific concerns, but I still think you are really here just to provoke conflict for kicks, since nobody else seems to share your POV about these factual statements, and you appear not to have done your homework. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please leave your opinions about me to yourself. Failure to follow basic wikipedia rules cannot be fixed  with aggressive attitude. Tomorrow I will start deleting unreferenced opinions from the article, since you seem to have no desire to put the text into compliance with wikipedia rules and prefer attacking me. - 7-bubёn >t 17:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You said I engaged in "a crusade of character assassination in the worst traditions of religious intolerance".  Intolerance?  Oh - you mean like how I threatened to report you to ANI, and then did so?  Oh no wait a minute, that was you who threatened to report me and then did so.  Eye.  Speck.  Beam. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Also I strongly suggest you obtain some consensus from other users, before unilaterally hacking up an article about someone you obviously know very little about. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

text: I disagree with your interpretations of how wikipedia works. No amount of consensus can supersede the basic wikipedia policies, see wikipedia:Consensus.  - 7-bubёn >t 18:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: But your say-so alone is not good enough.  I can't go to any perfectly good article, say Sun, stick whatever tags I want on it, say "peacock", and demand they be addressed just because I say so.  It would take other editors who concur that there is a problem with that article. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Tags

message: * 22 January 2008 -  Sembubenny dumps a "cleanup tone" tag on article without explanation.
* 23 January 2008 - I remove tag because it promises "Specific concerns may be found on talk page", but none are. 
* 14 July 2008 (6 months later) - Sembubenny reverts me, and offers a two word explanation above: "Excessive glorification".
* 15 July 2008 - I remove the tag again, because there are still no "specific concerns" that can be addresed
* 17 February 2009 (7 months later) - Sembubenny again dumps the tag along with two others, with nary a word of explanation.  I again remove them.
* 10 March 2009 (1 month later) - Sembubenny once again restores the tags, mentioning only one "specific concern" : the assertion that Stearns had a "profound impact".  I respond to his long-awaited explanation by pointing out that Stearns did indeed have a profound impact (see above).
* 23 March 2009 - after waiting in vain for any reply, I again remove the tags.  Sembubenny reverts and responds by threatening to "report" my "inappropriate behaviour". Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Complete chronology of problem on this article