It has been a little while now since my most active involvement in this fantastic site. I have a clearly stated goal of providing unbiased information on topics of interest to Christians.
My active involvement includes areas I have interest and specific knowledge in which include:
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 13:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, please do not replace that content about Ross - the external link you added is not a WP:RS and such controversial content requires quatilty sourcing and as I said - discussion on the talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 13:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will reiterate what Off2riorob said. Next time you try to post unreliable attack material to Wikipedia, as you did again here,[1] your account will be blocked. JehochmanTalk15:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Potter's House Article
The edit you propose to keep contains no accurate information, contains subjective criticism and has an invalid reference and as such is better viewed as mindless vandalism. The church mailing list on the other hand is an accurate published document of all active not just planted churches. It's content can be verified by any independant person at any time since it provides names, addresses and phone numbers of all pastors for all fellowship churches. I suggest you do not simply revert my edits but discuss them with me first. Please read the edit warning provided to you by Moondyne as this seems to be a similar issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wcwarren (talk • contribs) 11:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have overseen this article for the past 4 years and have protected it that it be maintained as a WP:NPOV, so accusing me of vandelism is a total waste of your time. I strongly urge you Wes to read through the wikipedia policies before you make a mess of the article showing your bias, as we both know you have been and are currently a member of the church for more than 10 years, you need to be careful not to show a conflict of interest. You cite that I quote unverified information but 80% of the information is unverified anyway accept that of its history, would you like to remove all of it? Furthermore wikipedia has policies of what can be used as references and external links, I urge you to go through them and familiarise yourself with what can be constituted as an encyclopedia type work, for example a in house mailing list cannot be used as a reference therefore it must be removed. I have given you sound warning I urge you to consider your edits carefully before I have to fix the problems you create on the Potter's House related articles.
Hi! I've removed a comment you made at the Potter's House Christian Fellowship, as it seemed to be providing the full name of an editor who edits under a partial, but not complete, name in their ID. I'm not sure whether or not that user has revealed their name elsewhere on the wiki, but to be cautious I removed the post. I also noticed that a link to your information had been posted. First, my apologies for not noticing that earlier. However, I removed that as well for similar reasons - you don't seem to edit under your full name, so I'm regarding that as a possible outing as well. If you are happy to have your full name displayed, I've got no problems if that is added again. I'm making pretty much the same comment over at Darrenss' talk page.
If I'm being overly cautious, my apologies, but generally I'd rather be too cautious in these situations than make the mistake of not being sufficiently careful. - Bilby (talk) 13:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I should add that if you are concerned about your details, and if you haven't revealed them on-wiki before, you are might want to request oversight or the deletion of the revision. - Bilby (talk) 14:05, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An Admin's help might be useful and I'm willing to abide by their decissions. My understanding is that contentious content should be discussed not just edited. Darren, you have a history of edit war violations and a clear collection of content opposing this oraganisation. Darren's Youtube Potters House Hate SitePerhaps it is time to bow out of this discussion?Wcwarren (talk) 10:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I provided information on the church such as their teachings, you insist on calling that hate, that is a categorical error on your part. Darrenss (talk) 20:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Vandalism
On Wikipedia, "vandalism" refers only to edits that are not made in good faith. See WP:VANDAL. Please avoid mischaracterizing good faith edits, even those with whom you disagree, as vandalism. Will Bebacktalk02:38, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am very familiar with one individual online and offline and his edits are far from the good faith end of the spectrum. It is not just a matter of disagreement but one of accuracy, neutrality and balance. Sometimes it seems an editor will push one perspective without fair and balanced consideration of other viewpoints. To edit another's work based only on their subjective suspicions with no references is not a work of good faith so I believe it is vandalism in this context.Wcwarren (talk) 13:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome to your beliefs. But if you label the edits of someone working in good faith as "vandalism" it reflects poorly on you and makes you look like a zealot. We all have to work with people with a range of views, even those diametrically opposed to our own. We can disagree about accuracy, neutrality and balance without calling each other names. Please read WP:CIVIL. Will Bebacktalk21:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just an observation: it is obvious by Darren's own statements above "...I have overseen this article for the past 4 years and have protected it that it be maintained as a WP:NPOV, so accusing me of vandelism is a total waste of your time..." that he trolls over the pages refusing anything but bad publicity. He run's You tube and other hate sites against the church, and thus his imput, and his constant wall of is not neutral. His constant reverting and accusing of those who edit is a restriction on the neutrality of the page. 121.217.134.239 (talk) 14:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is this Wcwarren? Please log in when editing. The behaviors you describe, if true, are inappropriate. But they are not "vandalism". If you wish to communicate effectively, and have problems addressed, then using the correct words will help. Will Bebacktalk19:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, thanks for your input. I will try harder to get the right formal tone and avoid commentary. How can I test my writing, what is the best way to post proposed texts? I'm keen to make the Potters House page more accurate and informative. So far is has been a poor quality, almost boxing ring style area where opponents try to write in a negative POV.Wcwarren (talk) 13:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history at Charles Darwin shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.
If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. — Jess· Δ♥00:19, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that you aren't currently subscribed to Ichthus, the WikiProject Christianity newsletter. Witha new format, we would be delighted to offer you a trial three-month, money-back guarantee, subscription to our newsletter. If you are interested then please add your name tothis list, and you will receive your first issue shortly. From June 2013 we are starting a new "in focus" section that tells our readers about an interesting and important groups of articles. The first set is about Jesus, of course. We have also started a new book review section and our own "did you know" section. In the near future I hope to start a section where a new user briefly discusses their interests.--GilderienChat|List of good deeds21:07, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Love history & culture? Get involved in WikiProject World Digital Library!
Hi Wcwarren! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the World Digital Library, a project of the Library of Congress and UNESCO. I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about history & culture to participate in improving Wikipedia using the WDL's vast free online resources. Participants can earn our awesome WDL barnstar and help to disseminate free knowledge from over 100 libraries in 7 different languages. Multilingual editing encouraged!!! But being multilingual is not a necessity to make this project a success. Please sign up to participate here. Thanks for editing Wikipedia and I look forward to working with you! EdwardsBot (talk) 19:47, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop rearranging talk page sections
Please stop rearranging talk page sections, as you have at Talk:Potter's House Christian Fellowship[2]. The convention is that topics are maintained in the order that they were introduced. The subject header "Read This First!" indicates that you wish to commandeer the entire talk page to make your various arguments. Not the way it's done here. signed, Willondon (talk) 23:11, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The long standing community practice is to place new talk page topics at the bottom of the page. No one editor is allowed to hijack the curation of the talk page by inserting new topics at the top saying "Read This First!" If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia in this way, you may be blocked from editing. signed, Willondon (talk) 15:12, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Willondon Then please explain why various editors have put of order content at the top of other talk pages? If this is allowed at other places then it can happen here too.
The issue is that there are editors who don't want to be reminded of the poor conduct they display at this particular article. Wcwarren (talk) 20:13, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link and suggestions. Some takeaways from Wiki guidelines include:
BRD is never a reason for reverting. Unless the reversion is supported by policies, guidelines or common sense, the reversion is not part of BRD cycle.
The talk page is open to all editors, not just bold ones. The first person to start a discussion is the person who is best following BRD.
Be bold, and make what you currently believe to be the optimal changes based on your best effort. Your change might involve re-writing, rearranging, adding or removing information.
In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.
Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you.
@Isaidnoway Thanks for this information. Truth be told, none of my comments have been "casting aspersions" or formed "unfounded allegations". You have clearly self-identified your orientations on your user homepage.
User JohnnyBflat represents 5.42% of the total edits made to the page in question and most of his edits are adding negative allegations or reverting other's edits. Requests for clarification of his potential COI and bias have gone unanswered to date.
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
Dear Admin, I fully understand the reasons given for the editing block made against me. In the "rough and tumble" of trying to make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia I have clearly caused some unnecessary angst for other editors. I have been trying to edit the Potter's House Christian Fellowship page to make it more informative for everybody. It is clear to me that some perceive this as simply removing negatives but an objective analysis of my edits would show this is not the case. Yes, I have questioned other's potential editorial bias but this has never been actually based on their personal sexual orientation or gender identity. I respect people's right to choose these things without fear of hate speech or criticism of their choices. There is a perception of a potential conflict of interest in my edits. I would like to be given a chance to edit from now on in this context and this will help remove perceptions of tendentious editing for the Potter's House article. In the hope of my complete edit block being removed, I have added a COI notice to my talk page. My goals are to make Wikipedia a better place and assure the team here that my edit will comply with community expectations and all rules. Sincerely, wcwarren Wcwarren (talk) 12:53, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Decline reason:
I came to this page because you have an open unblock request here, which I decided to review. Previously I had no knowledge of your existence, nor of the article you have been editing, the organisation that article is about, or anything else involved in the case. The following, therefore, is an account of how things looked to an uninvolved outsider on studying your editing history. What I saw was a truly mindboggling inability to see the nature of your own actions. If I were to cover all the forms that this has taken, I would be here for rather a long time, but here are a few examples.
You have repeatedly expressed the view that anyone with a view opposed to yours cannot edit neutrally because holding a view on the matter inherently makes them biased, yet you show no sign whatever of seeing that the same may apply equally to someone holding the opposite view. There are many examples of this, but here is just one example: You said "Perhaps weighing into new disputes on an organisation you in principle oppose lacks neutrality? Why be here at all?" but it doesn't seem to occur to you to say "Perhaps weighing into new disputes on an organisation you in principle support lacks neutrality?"
You have repeatedly tried to claim that anyone who has had an involvement in the organisation and is now critical of it must have a conflict of interest, but you seem totally unable to grasp the point that if that is so then it must be equally true that that anyone who has had an involvement in the organisation and is now supportive of it must have a conflict of interest.
You have repeatedly instructed (not requested) other editors that they must never make a revert without first discussing that revert, yet you have frequently done precisely that yourself.
While on the subject of instructing other editors what to do, it is worth mentioning that you have shown very strong signs of behaving as though you think you own the article, and are in a position to lay down rules and instructions on how it may be edited.
Here is just one typical example of a kind of thing you have repeatedly said, many times: "Some editors come to Wikipedia with the goal of raising the visibility or credibility of a specific topic, term or viewpoint leading to disproportionate coverage, false balance and reference spamming. When advocates of specific views prioritize their agendas over the project's goals or factions with different agendas battle to install their favored content, edit-warring and other disruptions ensue." Yes, and indeed that is a very accurate description of your own practices.
You claim that your accusations of bias have "never been actually based on their personal sexual orientation or gender identity". That is absolutely untrue. Way back in 2011 you more than once stated that a person was shown to be biased by his "Jewish faith" and "active homosexual lifestyle", and essentially similar views have continued right down to now, even though more recent examples have been expressed in a less blatant way.
Just one more example to illustrate your apparent inability to see the nature of your own actions, and that should be enough. "Truth be told, none of my comments have been "casting aspersions" or formed "unfounded allegations". Isaidnoway has clearly self-identified their orientations on their user homepage." You seem not to have understood that what you did which was criticised was not saying that Isaidnoway was gay, but implying that being gay somehow automatically made him a biased editor.
In your unblock request you refer to "a perception of a potential conflict of interest in [your] edits" and "perceptions of tendentious editing", and say "some perceive this as simply removing negatives but an objective analysis of [your] edits would show this is not the case". (My emphasis.) If you really think the problem is that others "perceive" things that way, and that what you believe is not just your view but "objective" truth, then it is difficult to see how you can ever change the nature of your editing, even if you were to wish to do so. You said above "I fully understand the reasons given for the editing block made against me", but, unfortunately, everything you say shows that you don't. That being so, unblocking you would stand no realistic chance of benefitting the project. JBW (talk) 20:43, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
You state — Yes, I have questioned other's potential editorial bias but this has never been actually based on their personal sexual orientation. But yet that is exactly what you did to me. Yes, I self-identify as LGBT. You admit that you saw that at my userpage. Then you returned to the articles talk page and said: "Your "research" of this organisation would certainly latch on to claims that "Same-sex relationships are classed as “sexual sin” and “perverted behaviour”. Can you maintain neutrality when this area is something you actively oppose?"
You then said: "If you feel identifying your LGBTQ bias is a personal attack, then perhaps your home page should be changed. Clearly, your perspective on these issues is strongly contrasted with the conservative Christian values portrayed in the media for the Potter's House." You also said this: "Perhaps weighing into new disputes on an organisation you in principle oppose lacks neutrality? Why be here at all?" (diff) + (diff).
Same-sex relationships were never discussed on the talk page by any editor, and same-sex relationships were not part of the disputed content under discussion. Can you explain why you think I would "latch on to" those specific claims, and why you would assume that I "actively oppose" anything concerning this church, and what you meant by LGBTQ bias, and the remainder of your comments about me. I think the community would also like an explanation as to why you brought up my sexual orientation in the first place. The assumptions you made about me, based on my sexual orientation, are hurtful and offensive. And I feel like that should be pointed out to you.Isaidnoway(talk)17:17, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These ancient comments were not attacking the individual at all! They did highlight that Rick Ross is frequently criticised [by others] and should be categorised as an unreliable and biased external source of information about Christian churches. External references were used that clearly identified him as a poor "real Christian perspective on Christian church characteristics or practices".
