User talk:RAW

The purpose of User talk pages is to leave messages for particular users.

A message box stating "You have new messages" is automatically displayed to a user at the top of any Wikipedia page, until they view their user talk page.

Once the User has responded to comments on their User talk page they may choose to delete them. Reverting such removals is not proper and may result in a block for edit warring.

RAW 02:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A warning to those involved in discussions with Ekklesiastic/Taiwan Girl

Ekklesiastic wrote the following:

"Feel free to tell people (on CCM or anywhere) that we're totally disgusted with the depravity in the Christadelphian brotherhood, including in our own ecclesia, and that we've resigned from Baringa and have no intentions of joining another Christadelphian ecclesia. Christadelphians are hell-bent on self-destruction and we don't plan to go on that journey with them. The Lord has other work for us to do."

As he requests, we tell them "anywhere". These are his own unedited words.

If he says he is a Christadelphian, even when going by the name Christadelphian Blogger, the above paints a very different picture.

I invite him to discuss these issues openly for all to see. His words speak for themselves.

If one sees anything wrong in what I have said please let me know. Thanks!

After having dealt with Ekklesiastic I would warn all and sundry to be careful in any private discussions with him.

RAW 02:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above the invitation still stands for Ekklesiastic to discuss all these issues openly for all to see. That would mean giving free and uncensored access to his blog for comments. Just recently he began to allow comments but again they are censored through him. He initially started his blog anonymously and was quite incensed when people identified who he was on a private forum.

The warning still stands, be careful as Ekklesiatic demands control. RAW (talk) 12:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is simply untrue that the above is an "unedited" quotation from something I wrote. I have answered this false accusation here: http://christadelphian.blogspot.com/2008/04/gossip-case-study.html

I have repeatedly asked RAW to remove it. Ekklesiastic (talk) 03:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

for those wishing to see the continuation of comments from Chirstadelphian Talk page on the discussion on links to forums

These are unedited comments:

Edits and comments where you do not sign in are not appropriate. Person 58.107.151.115 was vandalizing page but has now signed in. Hopefully discussion can continue appropriately. RAW 06:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RAW, you are wrong. Wikipedia guidelines about logging in say: "You do not have to log in to read Wikipedia. You don't have to log in even to edit articles on Wikipedia — almost anyone can edit almost any article at any given time, even without logging in, and many long-time contributors do not log in." Click on "edit this page" on any page and you will see a message at the top saying "you are free to edit without logging in". Whether it's "appropriate" to edit without logging in is just your opinion, but you express it so dogmatically you make it sound like it's a policy. Ekklesiastic 05:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion should be to the topic and not personal attacks. Personal attacks (if you must)should take place on your own talk page. They have been removed from here. RAW 06:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RAW, you should take your own advice. Your constant use of the words "vandalism/vandalise" to describe legitimate edits is a form of personal attack. Ekklesiastic 13:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See below and reference to wiki vandalism to see that they are not legitimate edits. Nor was not signing in, appropriate. RAW 14:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks should not be made anywhere. Simply because you make a personal attack on someone on your Usertalk page (as you have done) does not make it any less slanderous. Ekklesiastic 14:11, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Message to 58.107.151.115 - if you wish a discussion please stop vanadalizing what people have edited and sign in. Discussion on this any further is likely more appropriate at your talk page and can be conducted there once you sign in. Sadly some have a reputation for being anonymous and wreaking havoc. You are not helping that reputation. RAW 13:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to the comment by RAW about people signing in and especially his comment about 'anonymity', I note with interest that I think I am the only user contributing to this article who has openly provided his name and identification on a User Page. RAW is anonymous. I am not. Ekklesiastic 14:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that we should all sign in. Whether a person calls himself John Thomas or Christadelphian Blogger or another pseudonym is their choice. Please sign in. A discussion on whether people have or have not revealed their actual names can be conducted on a user talk page. Thanks. RAW 14:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RAW, if you think a User Page is the most appropriate place to make this point then do it and please stop making it here. Ekklesiastic 00:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again you need to read carefully. My point is the need to sign in. Your point that you have revealed your "name" and whether others should or not is what should be discussed on your user page. Whether you choose to tell people a name or not is something you can discuss elsewhere but is off topic. The point here is simply that one should sign in. Can you now stop this here and continue the discussion on your talk page if it is important to you. RAW 02:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am one of the managers of the Truth Alive forum and have always been open about that. However, as everyone else who has posted a link to a website has been anonymous or has used a pseudonym we have no way of knowing if these links were posted by the site owners or not. RAWs comment is a red herring. Ekklesiastic 06:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually not true. When I first posted a link to BTA forum I did not have a log in and was unaware of wiki convention/policy, I thus used my real name. I am not a manager or owner of the forum. Can we leave this please? It is really aside from the point of the discussion. The main point again, and please read carefully, is that we should sign in befoe editing and you are the owner of one of the forums in question. Surely, no one disagrees with that? Please stop bogging down the discussion with arguing these facts. RAW 02:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a red herring since the purpose of the link is to draw traffic to your own site. Really all the links to forums are to draw traffic and have been removed. They do not provide information but are links to discussion forums. See policy notes. RAW 13:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You should not presume to be able to read any one's mind and to know the purpose of a link. If "all the links to forums are to draw traffic" and if this is a reason for their removal, then it is equally true that all the links to Christadelphian websites are also to "draw traffic" and should therefore be removed. A consistent application of your logic would demand their removal. If increasing traffic to a site is a violation of Wkipedia policies then no site could be linked. Ekklesiastic 13:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, they provide informtion on Christadelphians and are not for the purposes of discussion. RAW 14:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RAW has also said that there has been thorough discussion about this, and there has been a consensus of more than two people. I must have missed that discussion. The only comments I've seen about this are his, responding to earlier comments by RJB (and RJB wasn't advocating the deletion of the links to Forums). There were two words from Aquatarkus on the matter, and a comment from Elpis. So much for "thorough discussion". RAW made the deletions before any discussion. In other words, once he has made his point he apparently feels that no further discussion is necessary, and two lines from two other users must count in his mind as "consensus". Ekklesiastic 00:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to "discussion" here other users reverted the vandalism of the page by 58.107.151.115 and subsequently reverted Ekklesiatics addition of the links. Thus the removal of the forum links was supported by not just two people. RAW 06:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring links which were removed without prior discussion is not "vandalism". Please stop using this word, unless you use it correctly. Ekklesiastic 06:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The point still stands, more than two support the removal of the links. As for vanadalism see the following from the wikipedia. Wiki vandalism is generally defined as editing a wiki in a way that is intentionally disruptive or destructive. There are four generally acknowledged types of vandalism: deletion of legitimate information, insertion of nonsense or irrelevant content, addition of unwanted commercial links (spam), and policy violations specific to that wiki. Continuing to add in links that violate policy is vandalism. RAW 13:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RAW, you may recall that several months ago you agreed not to delete a link to a forum, and you even agreed on the wording that should be used to describe it. The links have been there for some time until without an prior discussion you deleted them. I simply restored them. If any "vandalism" has occurred then it was by you because you constantly and repeatedly links which had been posted by several people, and which you had previously agreed to. Ekklesiastic 13:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RJB posted the policies on what to link above. A couple of weeks later I posted that *all* links to discussion forums were in violation and should be removed. Others concurred and have also deleted them after reflecting on the policies. You instead continued to revert those edits. My conscience is clear before God. Had I been aware of the policies at the time I would not have agreed to the wording you mentioned. RAW 14:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying that you've changed your mind. It might have been better then if, when you deleted the section with links to forums, that you said something like "I've changed my mind and now I think we should remove these links". Your references to "vandalism" at the time made it appear that someone had recently put up links which were contrary to policy, rather than you changing your mind after they'd been there for several months. In view of your clarification you should retract your comments about vandalism. Ekklesiastic 00:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I read the information on the policy and explained why. The user 58.107.151.115 kept changing the edits made without discussion and did so five times within one hour. And did revert the edits to not just myself but other users who also agreed about the policies. That is vandalism. Again, if you want to take this up further it is best done on the user talk page. My point is simply that user 58.107.151.115 needed to stop vandalising and instead sign in and discuss. Surely you agree with that? RAW 02:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletions from Christadelphian talk page

Please don't delete the discussion on the Christadelphian Talk page as it is still in progress. Ekklesiastic 02:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the above is off topic, hence why it is moved. RAW 02:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The material you deleted was very much to the topic. I note that the vast majority of what you have deleted have been my responses to your posts. By deleting this material from the Christadelphian Talk page you have demonstrated that (a) you intend to have the last word (yet again); (b) you apparently want to generate traffic to this page, possibly in the hope that other people will see your slanderous personal attacks here; and (c) you want to suppress anything I have to say in defence against your personal attacks. Have it your way. We have seen, yet again, what kind of person you are. Ekklesiastic 03:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: ERROR. Of the 24 posts moved 13 were mine and 11 were from Ekklesiastic. Vast majority? RAW 16:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Far from it. What has the above to do with the topic being discussed there, whether we should have links to discussion forums? Topics like who is anonymous, or whether someone has changed their mind? Please tell me where my attacks are slanderous? You are good at using such bullying words without any justification. Why the secret about what you wrote?

RAW 15:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]