Talk:Great Commission church movement/Archive 7

message: 2 things.
1) Wholesale removal of content doesn't fit into my idea of what a good wiki article looks like, and I think we can all find concensus on this.  If you want to make an edit like you did, bring it up here, because I don't think your changes are all that non-controversial.
2) Yes, we are concerned with NPOV and this article, but we are also concerned with having a good article.  If you are going to make future edits, read up a bit on your editing style and make sure your edits contribute to a presentable article.  As they stood, your edits were not presentable and would not get this article moved up in the wiki world.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mfpantst (talk • contribs).  
   Sorry I forgot to sign Mfpantst 18:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits by [[User:Mr. Pharoah Man|Mr. Pharoah Man]] 

message: Hey, anyone know some sysops that might be able to come in here and semi-protect the article from all the IP edits?  I checked out Wikipedia:Protection policy, and it looks like Semi-Protection would be the best solution for the problem.  IP 68.112.203.220 keeps deleting whole sections on the article itself, but has never shown up here on the talk page.  Anyone know how to go about getting something like that done?  Nswinton\talk 22:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like it got done for us.  I believe that IP is the only vandal IP we really have for this page, and he has been blocked for 36 hours now, and if he does it again, he'll be blocked for longer.  Mfpantst 12:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good :) Nswinton\talk 20:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  User has requested to be unblocked.  He was ignorant of wiki policies and also thinks that all the sections he blanked out are lies.  Perhaps someone from the other side of the aisle could try and talk to him.  I know some of this page is under contention, but we also understand that the content is under contention for POV reasons, not for their being lies as this user has attributed them to.  Outside voices (like my own) don't usually help, so if someone else could reason with him further that would be good.  I put a short explanation on his talk page in response and for the admin's consideration, but if they guy has reasonable ideas to contribute I don't want him wholly kept from helping out.  Thanks guys. Mfpantst 18:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  IP Vandalism 

message: Unfortunately, due to the POV banner, this article is a quick fail for Good article status. Once the dispute has been resolved and the article is stable, consider checking it against the Good article criteria and renominating if possible. Good luck with the article development. Skomorokh incite 15:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My vote is Weak Support as I think that this article is somewhat acceptable now but could still be written in a fairer (both ways) light.  I feel that the MPC needs to be moved from background to criticism sections, the beliefs and values section should be a summary or full listing, not what it is now, and that while all the specific items in the criticisms sections should remain, they should be summarized.(item, result, quotes) Mfpantst 16:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

text: As a former outsider (Wikipedia nomad kind of guy) called to have an opinion on this article, I deem the NPOV vaguely motivated by the previous discussion in this talk page. (so I Oppose) - The trouble with the article, is not that it criticizes Great Commission Association – if the society criticizes the movement, then this is an objective fact – but that it contains too little about the church faith in order to motivate such a degree of criticism. So my proposal is to add more facts about the movement faiths, while keeping the criticism. When the objective image stands to support the criticism (with possible countercriticisms, if that would be found elsewhere), then the image holds logically, and the POV-mark can safely be removed. It might be possible to request a lock from non-registered edits, and that might serve all editors in this talk page. I believe I'm going to contribute to this article by extending the Statement of Faith and Core Values, which is one of the more obvious missing facts. Said: Rursus ☻ 17:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, you're right actually, although I had a hard time finding the Wikipedia:Consensus where the process is described. So: I oppose for another reason: consensus must be reached on unanimosity or party vacancy. Said: Rursus ☻ 18:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Tyranny of the hecklers doesn't govern Wikipedia.  We don't give leave to people, for example, who hold extreme minority viewpoints to insist that their viewpoint be treated on an even basis with accepted views and that anything else isn't neutral.  Majority doesn't matter that much either - it's not a vote - but consensus does matter. --B 18:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well when you put it that way...  You guys are definately right.  Didn't really think that one through.  And thanks Rursus for coming to give some outside attention to this article. Mfpantst 18:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Deemed from the previous debate in this page, there will be no problems – all participants are consensus minded and collaborative for the most part. When called to here, I was a little concerned to be forced to partake in some conflict, but the discussion seems to be about how to reach good quality status. This is nice. Said: Rursus ☻ 20:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Failed Good Article nomination