Talk:New Testament Christian Churches of America/Archive 2

message: Mediation page is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/New_Testament_Christian_Churches_of_America%2C_Inc
I'm not sure what happens next. Hanako 17:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation 

message: The word "ingrown" has been used. Are we a toenail? How about a different word, maybe one that is used for businesses that get their talent from the inside? (A positive word is much more nuetral, at least, than a negative one.) And has anyone seen my thess-a-russ? Nevermind. There it is, embedded in a rock. ~a member
a member - your point is well taken, i will fix it right now.
wwjd2009 20:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's reasonable. I'll change it and if anyone disagrees they can speak up. Hanako 01:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed it to say "Outreach Ministry". Respond if you have concerns with that. Hanako 01:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  wording 

message: please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Pentecostal_Ho******_Church for a good article that i wouldn't mind reading in an encyclopedia that comes from a neutral point of view.  i may not agree with all of their practices, but i wouldn't expect to read all of their faults (in my eyes) in an encyclopedia.  this is a well written article, telling their history and the suchlike.
daddylonglegs2050 20:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Literary Purity 

message: Uggh!  
1.
I think the doctrinal statement is too long. Could we move it down with the article, (as originally published?) and refference/link to it under the doctrine heading? The link can even include "We Believe" and the bullet about salvation, then people can find the rest below. ~a member
(please take no action until at least the first three parties can agree.)
Yes, I agree with you and so did several others. But members of the church fought us so hard to include the whole doctrinal statement that was agreed to it in order to get compromise on what we felt needed to be included, but yet they are fighting those items too. Unfair of them if you ask me. Glad to have your input "a member". Could you sign your comments by adding four ~'s (the squggly line) after them? It records the date and time you made them. You could even register for the name a member or somehting similar. :) Hanako 01:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Readability! 

message: Can you please go look at the article right now, and see that you have messed up the way it looks? Everything is over to the left, a ton of spaces inbetween everything, and when I fix the format you feel that I am changing content. 
Also, the portion about outward holiness is valid and documented by a major newspaper. If the reporter felt it was necessary to include it to explain the church to its readers then it's necessary to include here as well. The reporter had NPOV and so does this article. No difference.
I think you're copying and pasting the entire article which is messing up the formating and text. Please make your edits within the form. Hanako 01:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hanako & Wwjd2009 

message: I think who ever has been working so diligently on this article should be commended. It looks great, and the format flows nicely. It also looks like the content has been a group effort. Good job! 2centsworth 22:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It does look great! Now if we can just agree on the content. But we are making headway. Tyworld 23:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formatting 

message: The recent edit has been reverted because (1) the church is classified as Pentecostal in the newspaper article (scans of which are posted at the bottom of the page, and (2) the other statements are accounted for by a countless number of witnesses who have made statements on Factnet.org (link at bottom of article). Thank you. Hanako 01:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, all i'm debating is the term "pentecostal". The News Tribune article provided refers to NTCC as such and therefore it is documented, as they interviewed the leaders directly in 1999. If NTCC has changed it's stance on Pentecostalism, please provide a new section detailing when this change took place. Thank you. Hanako 20:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Sure. About your most recent edit...getting free expired bread from Walmart and letting people take it home from church is hardly being a charity...in fact...Kekel himself stated that "a church is not a charity". I think it should be noted in the article that NTCC doesn't provide such services. At any rate, your addition sounds like an advertisement for NTCC, not an encyclopedia. I'm removing it. Hanako 00:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "removal of false info" 

message: The section "NTCC Official Doctrine" seems to be a direct copy from the website.  (The heading is linked to it.  By the way, can we change that somehow so it isn't the heading that is linked?)  Do we have a release on this information to include it?  One that is compatible with our GFDL?  RJFJR 16:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally don't think it should be included, but some other users argued for it and it stayed in. We don't have a copyright release. It should merely be included as a link. Hanako 11:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  clear of copyright? 

message: According to Wikipedia, links must be about the subject of the article, in this case NTCC. If your personal blog is allowed to stay, by that logic my personal blog should be included and perhaps every other person associated or ever associated should add their own links. You are acting like this is a personal attack, but it isn't, it's just trying to keep the Wikipedia article on topic. Plus, your statement that ntccXposed defames NTCC - is not coming from a neutral point of view, which is a Wikipedia standard. Thanks for your understanding. Hanako 01:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stedfast, et al 

message: What is wrong with "a blog written by a current member of NTCC"? why are you being picky about what the sites are about? TP blog is stated blog written by former ministers. Its not your blog leave it. Anyways do you even go to NTCC? What are your motives? Livingforgod 04:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hanako 

message: Isn't it time to grow up a little. Stedfast did something by mistake but you immediatly take it off of here by saying since its not for public viewing. Why would you take that off and not your own yahoo group? Which is not for public viewing. if you have a problem with a church organization take it to your yahoo group or factnet stop doing it here. I will pray for you so you can break free from the grudge you are holding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Livingforgod (talk • contribs) 
:I didn't know it was unintentional. Thank you for your prayers and have a great day! :) Hanako 19:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hanako 

message: I don't think it is approriate to say dogmatically that God has "commanded" something in His word if it is not stated plainly.
The person who keeps editing this section of the NTCC article is stepping over the line when they claim that God wants dresses and skirts on women when there is nothing so stated in the Word of God.  
I don't see why there is a problem with my adding into the Outward Holiness section that it is NTCC which believes such things and it is their interpreation.
I don't think this person should keep deleting this information.  It doesn't change what you believe, but it is totally incorrect to state something is in fact stated in the Bible, when it is in fact, NOT.
Tracy Pelfrey —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tracypelfrey (talk • contribs) 16:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outward Holiness Editing 

message: Stedfast, the section on holiness standards is VERY biased in it's wording. It doesn't read like an encyclopedia at all. I've been giving you a chance to revise your version before I start editing it, but we've got to address this issue like an encyclopedia would, with a neutral point of view. Hanako 22:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stedfast 

message: From Tracy:
This is an Encyclopedia...not a sermon and not a Bible Study.
I guess the moderator will have to decide whether or not "preaching" is allowed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.211.7.227 (talk) 03:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding the Editing of the Holiness Standards 

message: I guess the title says it all.
This is an encyclopedia.
If you want to spread your doctrine...do it somewhere else. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.211.12.247 (talk) 19:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contacted Wikipedia About The "Sermon" Content in Holiness Standards 

message: As per resolution with Tracy in that doctrine should not be included and this is an encyclopedia.  I also came across the fact that the NTCC Official Doctrinal Statement is copyrighted and can not be included here on this page unless you get a copyright release.  So it has been removed and only a link to the copyrighted doctrinal statement is included.
Thanks for helping resolve this issue.  Stedfast 20:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright Information Deleted 

message: We need to discuss this.  We are currently violating wikipedia's guidelines concerning this article.
wwjd2009 20:48, 05 Mar 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article or section does not adequately cite its references or sources. 

message: see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links
What can be linked:
1. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons. 
2.  Is it proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.)? 
Links to Avoid - according to Wikipedia
Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority are to be avoided.
Wwjd2009 17:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  We are in violation of External Links pages 

message: 1.  Tracy, let's talk and come to this from a neutral point of view.  I must agree with the other parties it appears you have an agenda you are trying to push, which is against Wiki policy.
I found one of your quotes dated March 7th on the websites you frequent stating:
Tracy said...We will make sure that folks who look up NTCC won't just find your propaganda page on Wikipedia...but will find the sources of information of those hoping to keep people as far away from NTCC as possible. 
And, hopefully, if you can be kept busy fooling around with loopholes on Wikipedia...you will be kept from fouling up the souls of men and women.
End Tracy quote.
What is funny is that ntcc didn't even put this page up. Hanako and others did.  Some people slightly edited what Hanako and others said, but even in that I believe Hanako and stedfast worked it out and the result was an article that probably did not please NTCC nor Hanako but like mature adults they agreed.
so why the changes all of a sudden? and with unverifiable information.  Plz verify your changes with a newspaper article or encyclopedia.
IF you continue, we'll have to get a mediator and perhaps BAN you from this site.  It's happened before but I hate to do that.  I am sure you are a wonderful person, so let's work this out.  thx. Daddylonglegs2050 17:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tracy's attempt to push her agenda and not keep this Encyclopedic in nature 

message: I've been away, and haven't kept up with anything NTCC-related in quite awhile. But I see it's time for me to get back here and contribute. I agree that we need to work together. I realize that "compromise" is a bad word in NTCC, but it's needed here.
I feel that this article needs a "controversy" section. You cannot leave the article the way it is without saying there are people who disagree with NTCC's practices. This is significant. We aren't talking about one or two people, or one or two points of contention. An encyclopedia would state that there was controversy with a link to Factnet, at least. Mormonism has a whole article called Criticism of Mormonism. We could at least have one section within the article that briefly states that there is controversy. Isn't it telling that NTCC arranges their doings so that there will never be sources? That's an attribute of a controling cult. "Neutral" does not mean we cannot state anything "negative". Neutral means it needs to sound as though it was written by a third party - someone that doesn't not have a vested interest in what is said, and that the article will not be one-sided when there is, in fact, more than one side. Looking forward to the dicussion. Hanako 02:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm back 

message: Because of the narrow-minded ignorance of the world outside of NTCC, the loyal followers of the "Apostle" R.W. Davis deserve to have this article as a stub.  Davis is not an apostle as he so selfishly claims in a wonderful, narcissistic fashion.  See [].  God has to designate an apostle, Davis designated himself.  NTCC teaches hatred and judgmentalism instead of love and tolerance.  Guess what, Jesus himself was loving and tolerant.  Jesus always helped the sinner, many times in the middle of a sinful lifestyle.  NTCC doesn't deliver anyone from sin, just teaches a person other sins while claiming to be sinless.  Hatred, backbiting, kicking people out of church, intolerance, judgmentalism, condescension, etc. are all the common sins of NTCC.
JaMikePA 16:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NTCC gets what it deserves