Jump to content

User talk:Watchman1234

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Watchman1234, you are invited to the Teahouse!

[edit]
Teahouse logo

Hi Watchman1234! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like AmaryllisGardener (talk).

Visit the Teahouse
We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:03, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Watchman1234. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by — Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:25, 12 September 2016 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

[edit]

Hello, Watchman1234. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Burning Bush

[edit]

Please familiarize yourself with WP:SYNTH, WP:OR, WP:ISNOT, WP:RS and probably a whole bunch of other guidelines and policies. The continued reversal of your addition of personal opinions/interpretations/whatnot to this article is inappropriate and unencyclopedic. In any case, after your additions were reverted, you're not supposed to start edit warring, but take it to the talk page and discuss then issues there. --Randykitty (talk) 12:26, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • You seem to have a detailed inside knowledge of this journal, college, and the Bible-Presbyterian churches (Singapore). Can you tell me what your relationship with these subjects is? --Randykitty (talk) 09:25, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I attend the services of B-P churches and have friends in both VPP and non-VPP churches. Occasionally, I also attend the services of non-BP churches and have friends in non-B-P churches too. I'll be objective and write based on information in the weeklies and publications of the B-P churches as well as The Burning Bush. All these are easily available and accessible on the internet. The inside knowledge helps, as it aids my understanding when I read the sources. I believe the same applies to Bpc.sg although I cannot be sure that he / she is also linked with the B-P churches. I'll follow WP:SYNTH, WP:OR, WP:ISNOT, WP:RS and other guidelines and policies as I learn along the way. As I have not heard from you on the latest edit for "The Burning Bush", may I assume that this is okay now? I shall work to follow Wikipedia policies as far as possible and use only facts and information which can be substantiated. --watchman1234 (talk) 19:38, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I don't think it is OK yet. And I won't even start about the problems in the other articles (Bible-Presbyterian churches (Singapore), for example). However, I'm not really interested in this stuff nor do I want to dive into it, so I'm hoping some other editor who actually finds this interesting will step in. Clearly, you are way too close to all this to be able to write objectively about this (in addition to apparently not understanding what independent sources are), nor do you seem to be able to differentiate between the trivial detail and what is really important. But I'm removing these articles from my watchlist. --Randykitty (talk) 12:35, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for your message. I'm surprised that you now seem to say that I cannot be objective (or I'm biased) when you apparently took offence to my pointing out that you could be so -- not without reasons cited by me. I believe that WP:SYNTH is not that rigid as long as what is synthesized does not lead to a ludicrous outcome: synthesis with background information helping readers to understand the context or for some other good reasons, in my view, is better. It looks like you now focus on "independent sources" instead of "reliable sources." Sometimes, it is not possible to have "independent sources" as there are not many journalists or reporters in our part of the world. The "independent sources" actually depend on "non-independent sources" for their information. For example, Roland Chia (a Methodist minister) relied on Bible-Presbyterian sources to write his article entitled "What led to formation of Bible-Presbyterian churches?" John Arul of the New Paper, which is regarded as a reliable source, got his facts wrong in his article "Church sues Bible College Directors" when he wrote that "True Life church registered the college as a charity organisation without Life BPC's knowledge" when FEBC was registered as a charity even before True Life Bible-Presbyterian Church was registered (this is easily verified by checking information publicly available), and both FEBC and Life BPC use only the KJV as their English Bible -- and not only FEBC or those subscribing to VPP. I don't blame John Arul as Life BPC's "non-VPP" KJV only stand seems unique and confusing. For Jeffrey Kboo and others v Life Bible-Presbyterian Church and others, I don't think we should say that the the Court of Appeal Judgement is not an "independent" source for writing the article about the judgment since what is of paramount importance is that the article reports accurately the judgement of the Court so that readers do not have to pore through the details. Ask Bpc.sg as he / she sent a note to thank me for contributing to the article which was probably also on the verge of being deleted as the skeletal outline was left unattended for almost a year with a template put up for possible deletion. Even though Jeffrey Khoo is regarded as a landmark case, I dont't think there is any substantial write-up on it more than five years after the case was concluded. Trivial details are sometimes needed for completeness and also because of the need to substantiate or prove what is written; however with knowledge on WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, the same facts for some articles already written need rewording. My understanding of encyclopedic is "comprehensive" or "full." As such I disagreed with you in removing a big chunk of substantiated facts in The Burning Bush due simply to not adhering to WP:SYNTH, WP:OR, etc. -- which are technicalities. The WP:NPOV principle is also important as you had allowed or approved of stuff critising The Burning Bush with VPP as being unedifying when there was not another view to contradict it. And when another view (substantiated with facts) was presented, you chose to take both out. I believe you also took issue with Bpc.sg when he/she put up a list of some 42 books written by the late Rev Dr Timothy Tow in Timothy Tow -- the list was cut down to just seven after objections from you. We should allow room for disagreement. --watchman1234 (talk) 23:52, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't have them, supposedly. But if a policy gets enforced zealously, it can be hard to tell the difference. The solution is to not enforce policies zealously. Never use a policy in such a way that the net effect will be to stop people from improving an article."(talk) 23:35, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

February 2017

[edit]

Information icon Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at The Burning Bush. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Randykitty (talk) 17:51, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Randykitty, I think it is arrogant to remove a substantial portion of someone's article without consulting him by simply saying that it is the writer's personal opinion when what was removed is substantiated facts. The courteous way is to question each part if you disagree with it or to reword the disputed part to make it appear more objective so that others can review and see if the reworded part is indeed acceptable. I'm not sure that you are really objective when you have approved the article when it had this part, "Consequently, the Rev Tan Eng Boo, pastor of Grace Bible-Presbyterian Church, criticized the publication as "once an edifying magazine" which has since been "targeted to combat non-VPPs" and "put down B-P pastors and elders who are not supportive" of the VPP doctrine," when it first appeared without any material then present in the article (based on substantiated facts) to challenge it. One can only be objective or non-opinionated in allowing both VPP and non-VPP views expressed by those involved in the controversy (i.e., Life BPC, FEBC, Jeffrey Khoo, Tan Eng Boo, etc.) to appear in the article. The person who contributed the afore-mentioned statement, "Consequently, the Rev Tan Eng Boo, pastor of Grace Bible-Presbyterian Church, criticized ...," was certainly of the view or opinion (was he not?) that the Rev Tan Eng Boo's criticism was true or had merit. Similarly, my contribution on the Rev Tan Eng Boo's view being incorrect as substantiated by independent facts (which were not my creation) should also not be deleted -- as was unfairly done by you. I believe you put up the notability templates to remove The Burning Bush and also Khoo Jeffrey and others v Life Bible-Presbyterian Church and others. If I'm correct here, you would clearly be prejudiced or opinionated against VPP, FEBC, Jeffrey Khoo, Timothy Tow, etc. --Watchman1234 (talk) 15:25, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank u for the wiki page

[edit]

I was a member of LBPC during the time of Pastor Tow's leadership. At the time of dissolution, I was not actively attending church service and was dismayed and confused to know of the split in church leadership.

This wiki page explains a lot about the different interpretations. Lengzzz (talk) 05:45, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

[edit]

Hello, Watchman1234. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

[edit]

Hello, Watchman1234. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Bible-Presbyterian churches (Singapore), but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images from either web sites or printed works. This article appears to contain work copied from , and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

See Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries for a template of the permissions letter the copyright holder is expected to send.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Bible-Presbyterian churches (Singapore) saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.

Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:10, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

[edit]
Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

March 2021

[edit]

Copyright problem icon Your edit to Bible-Presbyterian churches (Singapore) has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 21:54, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April 2021

[edit]

Diannaa (talk)Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) I was attempting to reply to Justanothersgwikieditor on his posting when I accidentally hit on some keys and his entry and my reply (still in process) were wiped off and I could not restore them. In case Justanothersgwikieditor cannot re-post what he wrote, I'd appreciate it if Diannaa could do so for me to respond to Justanothersgwikieditor. Thanks for your help.Watchman1234 (talk) 07:30, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I took the liberty to clean up the mess but my message is over at Talk:Bible-Presbyterian churches (Singapore)#content dispute. Since it is a content dispute, it is better to be done at the article's talk page. I am just trying to bring you and the IP editor together and discuss on content and perhaps seeks a third opinion if needed. --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 07:48, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
# Thanks for your message. The latest edit by 219.74.19.150 on the “Presbytery of BPCIS” reporting on the entry of Mount Horeb as the 8th BPCIS member continues his/her contention on a relatively insignificant event reported by David Wong, the BPCIS General Secretary, after earlier edits on Bob Phee and the non-existent “Synod of BPCIS” reporting on the matter had been reverted to David Wong because this is crystal clear from the source https://www.zionbishan.org.sg/2020/08/staying-true-to-our-mission/ that David Wong was the one involved. The current entry “Presbytery of BPCIS” is also inaccurate as there is no Presbytery of BPCIS as those who had formed this body intended BPCIS itself to be the new BP Presbytery, not that within the BPCIS there is a Presbytery. 219.74.19.150 is also adamant on naming some Malaysian BP churches even though they are not relevant or consequential to the article named “Bible-Presbyterian Churches (Singapore)”. He/she has also introduced a section entitled “Independent Evangelical Faction” without any sources supporting this other than citing the urls of the websites of some BP churches to show that the churches exist (as do many other BP churches with websites). He/she has removed KC Quek handing over the pastorship of Zion BPC to his son SH Quek for the former (KC Quek) to devote more time to pastoring Faith BPC: this is supported by the source cited on p. 72 in https://www.truelifebpc.org.sg/he_being_dead_yet_speaketh/Contents/3%20-%20Church%20&%20College%20Yearbooks/5%20-%20The%20Bible-Presbyterian%20Church%20of%20Singapore%20and%20Malaysia%201950-1971.pdf. As you are probably aware, I've always given my reasons for deleting or changing the edits of 219.74.19.150 in “Edit Summary” to the maximum spaces allowed; however, 219.74.19.150 has never done so. In an article with controversial issues, it is only fair and objective to present information from the sources of all relevant parties for balance and, where relevant, also outside sources (not that many, unfortunately) to let the readers decide by looking at the cited sources. It is unfortunate that 219.74.19.150 has usually not cited sources to support his/her edits and has persistently reverted to edits not agreeable to cited sources. It is whimsical of 219.74.19.150 to say “… there are some inaccurate information in the book of The Singapore B–P Church Story” without citing any narrative supported by a source/sources with the contradictory information. With the persistent edits from 219.74.19.150 disregarding the reasons given by me, it does not look like he/she will be reasonable. We will need objective editors to intervene. On another matter, my edit (undone by 219.74.19.150) was flagged up by Wikipedia for citing a blog or free web host. Would you be able to tell me which blog or free web host was involved so that I can remove it and replace, if possible, with other narrative and supporting source(s) or withdraw or rewrite the affected part entirely? In any event, I don’t have any blog or web belonging to me, which was why I proceeded with publishing my last contribution.Watchman1234 (talk) 09:18, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As the subject is a bit heavy for me, I do not like to comment on the content. I noted your edit summaries which is great for article watchers. Instead of hauling the IP editor to any boards, I am extending an invitation for both of you to work out the content as needed. If the IP editor refused to engage in any meaningful discussion, we can then proceed to other avenues as needed. For the issue you are referring, I take a look later and see what is the problem and fix it if possible. So if the IP editor continued editing without edit summaries and non-discussion (as invited), it will be easier for other editors to intervene. Thanks --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 10:30, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your message. I note that 219.74.19.150 has undone your reverting and you followed up with reverting 219.74.19.150. There is no edit summaries in 219.74.19.150's edits. I cannot see why he/she should be fighting over "reported" by now replacing this word with "announced" in "David Wong ... reported ... on Mount Horeb BPC ... becoming the eighth member of the BPCIS" after earlier inaccurate editing to Bob Phee, followed by non-existent "Synod of BPCIS" and finally "Presbytery of BPCIS" as the reporter or announcer. Watchman1234 (talk) 02:29, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Without looking at content, usually such editors are COI editors or having certain agenda. Anyway, the editor has been banned as of now by an admin. Do ping me using {{ping|Justanothersgwikieditor}} so I will know there is a message. Thanks!--Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 02:33, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please note the edit summary by Drmies here and kindly use 3rd party reliable source as well. --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 02:36, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your messages. As mentioned previously, outside or 3rd party sources are unfortunately few (or even non-existent) in a place like Singapore -- which is not like the U.S. or the U.K. Even if there are third parties, they rely on information published by BP churches in their weeklies, magazines, books, websites and publications. (I remember, in respect of the dissolution of the BPC Synod, Roland Chia was initially credited (in the contents of the article) with saying, "It was "mainly due to strong differences in interpreting the Doctrine of Biblical Separation, Fundamentalism, and Neo-Evangelicalism" but what he said or wrote was in fact taken from the publications of the BP churches. Roland Chia's name is still in the reference.) In an article on controversial issues, it is fair and objective to present information from the documents of both sides (primary sources), augmented by outside or third party sources if available, to let the readers decide by looking at all the cited sources. It would be very difficult, if not impossible, to write on the subject -- based on the approach suggested by Drmies -- as there aren't that many church historians or media sources reporting on churches in Singapore. One can only write on the subject by looking into the publications of BP churches and organizations: they are the most reliable and, perhaps, the only available sources in most instances. Watchman1234 (talk) 03:18, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Watchman, it's the other way around. Not, "there's no independent sources so we'll use what we can"--no. Rather, if there are no independent secondary sources on this or that topic, you simply cannot write the text. And the article in its current form is already bad enough. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and ALL of its content must, at heart, be based on secondary sources. Without them, there is nothing to write, because that is how encyclopedias work. What you are describing is, in the end, original research. Drmies (talk) 03:20, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Randykitty, fancy seeing your comments here--from four years ago. Plus ca change... Drmies (talk) 03:22, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder how it is possible not to delete "Independent Evangelical Faction -- Although some evangelical BP Churches formed their own presbytery body (Bible Presbyterian Church in Singapore), but most of the individual BP churches operate separately and independently post BP Synod dissolution, these BP churches are: Life Bible Presbyterian Church [54], Faith Bible Presbyterian Church [55], Calvary Bible Presbyterian Church [56], Eden Bible Presbyterian Church [57] and Reformed Bible Presbyterian Church [58]" in Bible-Presbyterian Churches (Singapore) as this comes from 219.74.19.150 and the sources cited are just the BP churches' urls. Watchman1234 (talk) 03:53, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For Randykitty's remarks, I wonder how it is possible to regard reference no. 5 from Tan Eng Boo of Grace BPC in The Burning Bush in https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/The_Burning_Bush as a third party source as he was a former contributor to The Burning Bush. Watchman1234 (talk) 03:53, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In the statement "Bible Presbyterian in Singapore have three Bible Colleges namely as: Far Eastern Bible College [8], Biblical Graduate School of Theology [9] and Emmanuel Reformed Bible College. [10]" in https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Bible-Presbyterian_churches_(Singapore), would the websites of the institutions cited be primary sources? Also the pages displayed when the urls are clicked do not support the narrative that the three institutions are BP. Should the statement then be removed? Watchman1234 (talk) 09:39, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Page 5 of the source document at https://www.truelifebpc.org.sg/he_being_dead_yet_speaketh/Contents/3%20-%20Church%20&%20College%20Yearbooks/6%20-%20Pressing%20Toward%20The%20Mark,%20Sept%2015-21,%201985.pdf (souvenir programme of the BPCOS in 1985) used as reference 4 to support the statement "It existed from 1955 to 1988, ... (with the Malaysian BP churches such as Rawang Bible Presbyterian Church and Kelapa Sawit Bible Presbyterian Church registering themselves in Malaysia after 1985)[4] before the BPCOS dissolved in 1988" in https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Bible-Presbyterian_churches_(Singapore) mentions only 8 congregations in Malaysia without the names of any of the churches. If this primary source document is acceptable for use, should not the Malaysian churches' names, Rawang and Kelapa Sawit, put in by 219.74.19.150 be removed as they are not supported by the source document and also the Malaysian churches are not relevant to Bible-Presbyterian Churches (Singapore)? Watchman1234 (talk) 14:40, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

June 2021

[edit]
@128.106.188.57:@Justanothersgwikieditor 128.106.188.57, you have edited “Independent Evangelical Faction” created by 219.74.19.150 by “improving” on the sources cited by him/her. You may be same person as 219.74.19.150 or acting in concert with him/her. (Justanothersgwikieditor had flagged up what seemed to be an ongoing edit war between 219.74.19.150 and me and the need for us to discuss our differences.)
I’ve deleted Independent Evangelical Faction as I don’t think the different web pages of the same organisational sources cited by you (as 219.74.19.150) at https://www.calvarybpc.com/statement-of-faith (replacing https://www.calvary.bpc.com), http://www.faithbpc.org.sg/3023478 (replacing http://www.faithbpc.org.sg), and https://www.lifebpc.com/index.php.about-us/what-we-believe (replacing https://lifebpc.com) support the narrative that these churches are in the evangelical faction. The statements of these churches are also statements or similar statements (in English) of churches in the fundamentalist faction. Life BPC and Calvary (Jurong) BPC practise biblical separation (both primary and secondary): see https://lifebpc.com/index.php/about-us/b-p-distinctives and https://www.calvarybpc.com/church-constitution; and Isaac Ong, Calvary (Jurong) BPC’s current pastor and an alumnus of Bob Jones University, on p. 22 of https://jsm57544188.files.wordpress.com/2019/07/all-for-jesus.pdf expresses his appreciation of the unwavering commitment of the late JSM founding pastor to biblical separation. As for Faith BPC, absent clear evidence, you should not speculate that it is in the evangelical faction (or in the fundamentalist faction).
Faith BPC, a Chinese-speaking congregation, is sited on the same premises as Zion (Serangoon) BPC at Tavistock Avenue in Serangoon Gardens. The late KC Quek, Faith’s founding pastor who was also the founding pastor of Zion BPC before he relinquished his role as Zion’s pastor to his son SH Quek, was resolutely for the BPC’s fundamentalist separation stand until just before the dissolution of the BPC Synod in October 1988 when he aligned himself with his son. As the article Bible-Presbyterian churches (Singapore) is focused on the English BP churches, the Chinese BP churches (Faith, Eden and Reformed) are not that relevant. In any event, you’ve deleted Eden and Reformed as you seem to accept that their web pages at https://www.edenbp.org and http://rbpc.sg (furnished by 219.74.19.150) do not have anything to support the narrative that these churches are in the evangelical (and not fundamentalist) faction.
The 12 statements of beliefs of Faith BPC and Zion (Serangoon) BPC were (and until recently, also are) the same as they were both registered in Nov 1986 – before the Synod’s dissolution in Oct 1988 – and the bi-lingual KC Quek (as the then Moderator of the BPC) was likely to have directed or coordinated the registration of these two churches with the ROS, together with other BP churches registered on the same day on 19 November 1986. However, I note that the website of Zion (Serangoon) BPC has just been revamped so that the chief tenets of faith in the 12 statements of a typical BPC are no longer present at https://zionserangoon.org.sg/our-beliefs/. However, Zion Bishan BPC (which operated as the branch of Zion BPC with the same constitution as the Serangoon parent/head office until the branch’s registration as an independent church with probably, for convenience reason, the same constitution) still has the twelve statements of a typical BPC on its website: https://www.zionbishan.org.sg/about/our-faith-and-practice/. Zion Serangoon, based on the latest statement of beliefs on its website, seems to no longer subscribe to only the premillennial return of Christ – a distinctive of the Singapore BPC – as the word “premillennial” has been dropped (apparently in line with BPCIS’s view that premillennialism is non-essential); it has also dropped the twelfth statement on “the necessity of faithfully maintaining the purity of the Church in doctrine and life according to the Word of God and the principle and practice of biblical separation from the apostasy of the day being spearheaded by the Ecumenical Movement (or other such movements) (2 Cor 6:14-18; Rev 18:4)” showing that SH Quek and his successors were/are never for the BPC separation stand – as his father KC Quek, who had once resolutely stood with the Tow brothers in support of McIntire, was. With the revamp of the website, the history of Zion Serangoon BPC is no longer available at https://zionserangoon.org.sg/about-us/our-history/ -- being replaced by https://zionserangoon.org.sg/our-story/. But, fortunately, there is still The Bible-Presbyterian Church of Singapore and Malaysia 1950-1971 at https://www.truelifebpc.org.sg/he_being_dead_yet_speaketh/Contents/3%20-%20Church%20&%20College%20Yearbooks/5%20-%20The%20Bible-Presbyterian%20Church%20of%20Singapore%20and%20Malaysia%201950-1971.pdf and Timothy Tow’s books such as The Singapore B–P Church Story to refer to for the early history of Zion BPC.
Another reason for my deleting 2.1.3 Independent Evangelical Faction is its non-fit with 2.1 Fundamentalist and Evangelical which has two corresponding sub-sections in 2.1.1 Leadership of Fundamentalist Faction and 2.1.2 Leadership of Evangelical Faction. If 2.1.3 is added, the addition/aberration destroys the symmetry or balance of 2.1. There is also no need to state churches in the evangelical faction not led by SH Quek as only the eight BP churches named as BPCIS members in the article come under the BPCIS’s control and Quek’s leadership. All other BP churches not in BPCIS obviously do not come under their control and they can be evangelical or fundamentalist. Unless the evidence is clear, there is no need to speculate whether the churches are evangelical or fundamentalist as 219.74.19.150 has attempted to do with Life, Calvary (Jurong), Faith, Cana and Reformed with inconclusive or dubious evidence. If the churches practise separation from apostasy, ecumenism and charismaticism – as put forth by you – should they not be classified as fundamentalist rather than evangelical? Harold Ockenga, the father of New Evangelicalism, says that New Evangelicals are characterised by their repudiation of the separatist stance of their forefathers. In England, the term “evangelical” is preferred to “fundamentalist” commonly used in the U.S., and it is also no exaggeration that many who call themselves Evangelicals today are New Evangelicals as the two terms have become synonymous: pp. 19 & 38 of https://www.wayoflife.org/free_ebooks/downloads/New_Evangelicalism.pdf. Those in the fundamentalist faction call those who do not adhere to the BP separatist stand as New Evangelicals whereas those in this group deny that they are so. As such, this group can be termed Evangelical/New Evangelical.
There is consensus in the article Bible-Presbyterian churches (Singapore) since 2015, before I even started to edit it, that the BPC is essentially divided into two factions from the dissolution of the BPC Synod due to the differences between two groups. This is supported by evidence from Timothy Tow’s books (freely available on the internet) and the BPCIS’s book Heritage and Legacy of the Bible-Presbyterian Church In Singapore. Let’s not make the article more complex by introducing in more factions other than the two broad factions. While there may be differences among the churches in the two broad factions, simplification is needed to avoid disrupting the flow of the article and to keep it manageable. The VPP issue, which arose more than 10 years after the dissolution of the BP Synod, divides churches in the fundamentalist faction; it remains to be seen whether the non-VPP churches in the faction remain fundamentalist or join BPCIS which has been courting them, as evident in BPCIS giving them space in Heritage and Legacy to express their non-VPP views while not extending the same courtesy to the VPP churches (or FEBC) to express their VPP views: https://www.truelifebpc.org.sg/resources/church_weekly/2018-11-11.xvi-6. Churches in BPCIS are non-VPP, in addition to non-separatist (based on the BPC’s stand on separation).
All BP churches operate independently post BPC Synod dissolution. Even after joining BPCIS, the eight BPCIS member churches still operate independently on many matters as the so-called BP Presbytery (i.e. BPCIS) classify many items/issues as non-essential and their members can act according to their own consciences and judgments. 35 non-BPCIS churches, which currently form the overwhelming majority (81.4%) of the 43 BP churches, do not come under BPCIS control and are not represented by BPCIS. It is likely that these churches are mostly fundamental/fundamentalist since the proposal to form BPCIS was first discussed in June 2010 but not many churches have joined despite overtures made to attract them: https://www.bpcis.org.sg/about. It is immaterial or superfluous to add that the evangelical churches not under SH Quek are independent when this fact is already clear in the general statement that all BP churches operate independently post BPC Synod dissolution.
With the removal of Independent Evangelical Faction, I’ve also removed the earlier sentence further up: “However, not all evangelical BP Churches belong to the evangelical groups because the evangelical BP Churches lead by SH Quek only have 8 churches and those independent evangelical BP Churches are: Calvary BP Church, Life BP Church, Reformed BP Church, Faith BP Church, Eden BP Church and others”. The removed sentence above is structurally unsound, in addition to the cited sources not supporting the narrative that the churches named are evangelical (and not fundamentalist).
You’ll note that I reversed or modified the other edits of 219.74.19.150 – in case these should also be of interest to you. The reasons (also given previously) are as follows: (i) removed “Rawang Bible Presbyterian Church and Kelapa Sawit Bible Presbyterian Church” as these are Malaysian BP churches not mentioned in the source by any names (p. 5 of https://www.truelifebpc.org.sg/he_being_dead_yet_speaketh/Contents/3%20-%20Church%20&%20College%20Yearbooks/6%20-%20Pressing%20Toward%20The%20Mark,%20Sept%2015-21,%201985.pdf) and the article Bible-Presbyterian churches (Singapore) is on Singapore BP churches and not Malaysian BP churches; (ii) re-siting Biblical Graduate School of Theology (is the school still BP and Reformed without (explicitly) embracing the Westminster Confession of Faith and declaring itself to be trans-denominational?) and Emmanuel Reformed Bible College to the appropriate place in the two paragraphs just after FEBC has been mentioned as the B-P's own seminary and giving more information on when and why these two new schools were formed rather than giving simply supplying the urls of these two institutions since without the additional information, readers would wonder why BPs did not go to these two schools (other than FEBC) but opted for local non-BP institutions and overseas institutions; (iii) David Wong, not the Presbytery of BPCIS (as the BPCIS is itself the Presbytery and there is no Synod in BPCIS), announced the admission of the eighth BPCIS member, Mount Horeb BPC, based on https://www.zionbishan.org.sg/2020/08/staying-true-to-our-mission/ cited as supporting source (no problem with me accepting “announced” preferred by 219.74.19.150 instead of “reported” in my earlier edit – my issue with 219.74.19.150 was with him/her putting forth Bob Phee, followed by the non-existent Synod and finally the presbytery of the BPCIS as the one making the report or announcement is clearly David Wong, the General Secretary of BPCIS).Watchman1234 (talk) 08:03, 1 June 2021 (UTC).[reply]
@2406:3003:2073:478e:f9b9:db24:3e24:833c:@SunDawn:@Justanothersgwikieditor 2406:3003:2073:478e:f9b9:db24:3e24:833, it looks like you are the same person as 128.106.188.57 and 219.74.19.150 or you are acting in concert with one or both if all three are different persons as you deal with the same issue of a majority of churches in the evangelical group being independent and not under the leadership of SH Quek and David Wong.
(Justanothersgwikieditor had flagged up what seemed to be an ongoing edit war between 219.74.19.150 and me and the need for us to discuss our differences. I notified 128.106.188.57 on this.)
I cannot see much value in your edit, “The evangelical/new evangelical group consist of only 8 churches [46] is led mainly by SH Quek and David Wong while majority of the evangelical BP churches remain independently; they headed the …” as the information on only eight BPCIS or evangelical churches under the leadership of SH Quek and David Wong in the BPCIS and other evangelical churches not under their leadership is already reflected in the article. Notwithstanding, I’ve put in under “Leadership of Evangelical faction” the following: “They also played key roles in the formation of BPCIS with six of the current eight BPCIS member churches hailing from the Zion-Carmel group (i.e., Zion Bishan, Zion Serangoon, Emmanuel, Mount Carmel, Mount Hermon and Mount Horeb) – see “Fundamentalist and Evangelical” above.
I hope you will not be bent on insisting on your edit, which is also structurally faulty. If you should do so, it would be clear that you are also intent, like 219.74.19.150 and 128.106.188.57, on disrupting the flow of the article with jarring edits and fighting over insignificant issues.Watchman1234 (talk) 10:14, 4 June 2021 (UTC).[reply]
@2406:3003:2073:478e:f9b9:db24:3e24:833c:@SunDawn:@Justanothersgwikieditor 2406:3003:2073:478e:f9b9:db24:3e24:833c reverted to his/her edits again.
The sentence, “The evangelical/new evangelical group consist of only 8 churches is led mainly by SH Quek and David Wong while the majority of the evangelical BP churches remain independently; they headed the Zion-Carmel combination and played a significant role in the dissolution of the BP Synod or the BPCOS in 1988 because of their different views on Bible versions, tongues-speaking, and biblical separation ” (underlined words added by 2406:3003:2073:478e:f9b9:db24:3e24:833c), is structurally and logically faulty. There is no evidence that the evangelical/new evangelical faction consists of only eight churches as it can be more despite only eight thus far joining BPCIS; the edit of 2406:3003:2073:478e:f9b9:db24:3e24:833c means that while a majority of the remaining evangelical churches (no evidence that it is the majority, as assumed) remain independent, a minority in the faction still comes under the control of SH Quek/BPCIS (even if they have yet to join BPCIS?!). Absent clear evidence, one should not speculate how many are fundamentalist and how many are evangelical/new evangelical churches. Also those regarded by2406:3003:2073:478e:f9b9:db24:3e24:833c as evangelical, presumably the same churches as those regarded by 128.106.188.57 and 219.74.19.150, may in fact be fundamentalist. (I note that there is no longer insistence that Reformed BPC and Cana BPC are evangelical after it was pointed out that their urls cited do not support the narrative that they are so; and Life BPC, Calvary Jurong BPC and Faith BPC (located on the same premises as Zion Serangoon BPC) may in fact be fundamentalist if they practise separation from apostate and ecumenical churches, as pointed out by 128.106.188.57, if the basis of deciding if churches are fundamental or evangelical depends on whether they embrace the biblical separation stance of Timothy Tow and KC Quek (before he switched side) since New Evangelicals repudiate the separation stance of their forefathers.)
The first sentence under Fundamentalist and Evangelical, “While individual BP churches operate separately and independently post BP Synod dissolution, they fall essentially or broadly into two factions or groups” already alludes to evangelical (and fundamentalist) churches operating separately and independently post BP Synod dissolution; there is no need for 2406:3003:2073:478e:f9b9:db24:3e24:833c to introduce his/her structurally faulty edit to disrupt the flow in the previous form: “The evangelical/new evangelical group is led mainly by SH Quek and David Wong; they headed the Zion-Carmel combination and played a significant role in the dissolution of the BP Synod or the BPCOS in 1988 because of their different views on Bible versions, tongues-speaking, and biblical separation.”
There is no reason to remove the sentence, “They also played key roles in the formation of BPCIS with six of the current eight BPCIS member churches hailing from the Zion-Carmel group (i.e., Zion Bishan, Zion Serangoon, Emmanuel, Mount Carmel, Mount Hermon and Mount Horeb) – see Fundamentalist and Evangelical above”, as this is supported by the facts enumerated and substantiated by sources further up in Fundamentalist and Evangelical.Watchman1234 (talk) 09:44, 6 June 2021 (UTC).[reply]
@2406:3003:2073:478e:f9b9:db24:3e24:833c:@SunDawn:@Justanothersgwikieditor 2406:3003:2073:478e:f9b9:db24:3e24:833c, I see no value in your addition of a new sub-section named “Independent Faction” as all churches (evangelical and fundamentalist) operate separately and independently after the dissolution of the Synod. As mentioned previously, this is already clear in the sentence: “While individual BP churches operate separately and independently post BP Synod dissolution, they fall essentially or broadly into two factions or groups”.
Like 128.106.188.57 and 219.74.19.150, if you are not the same person as these two IPs (although this is not likely now), you are obsessed with disrupting the flow of the article by introducing a third group previously described as Independent Evangelical Faction which you now call Independent Faction. I had erroneously referred to one of the churches in my previous talk as Cana BPC when it should have been Eden BPC which was included as an ‘independent evangelical church’ not under the leadership of SH Quek. As Eden was accordingly not objected to in my previous talk, you have seized the opportunity to again put in Eden BPC in your latest grouping Independent Faction by simply citing the url of this church – done previously to mislead as supporting a narrative. Since Eden does not share the characteristic that you advocate for the other four churches (Calvary Jurong BPC, Life BPC, Faith BPC and Evangel BPC) on holding to the doctrine of biblical separation from the present-day apostasies of ecumenism and charismatism, you are unable to give the url supporting this, unlike the four churches: https://www.calvarybpc.com/statement-of-faith, https://www.lifebpc.com/index.php/about-us/b-p-distinctives, http://www.faithbpc.org.sg/3023478, and https://www.evangel-bpc.org/statement-of-faith.html.
Your latest edit, which has three sentences, is also structurally or logically defective. The first sentence “After the BP Synod dissolution in 1988, majority of the BP Churches operate separately and independently” is incorrect as after the Synod dissolution in 1988, all (not a majority) of BP churches operate separately and independently, see pages 216,226-227 of https://www.febc.edu.sg/assets/pdfs/febc_press/The%20Singapore%20B-P%20Church%20Story.pdf.
The second sentence, “These BP Churches namely as: Life Bible Presbyterian Church [60], Calvary Bible Presbyterian Church [61], Faith Bible Presbyterian Church [62], Evangel Bible Presbyterian Church [63], Eden Bible Presbyterian Church [64] and others”, notwithstanding “and others” added at the end, clearly shows your difficulty in citing sources to support a majority with only five churches (out of a remaining 35 non-BPCIS churches) named – one of which prima facie does not have the same characteristic as four of the named churches, as pointed out.
The third sentence, “Unlike BPCIS, majority of these churches hold to the doctrine of biblical separation from the present-day apostasies of ecumenism and charismatism [65] [66] [67] [68]”, is not necessarily true. First, how do you know that a majority of these churches (proof needed for asserting a majority) hold to the doctrine as not all churches display their constitutions or full statements of faith on their websites? Even for those who do, for example, Zion Bishan at https://www.zionbishan.org.sg/about/our-faith-and-practice/ says, “We believe in the real, spiritual unity in Christ of all redeemed by His precious blood and the necessity of faithfully maintaining the purity of the Church in doctrine and life according to the Word of God and the principle and practice of biblical separation from the apostasy of the day being spearheaded by the Ecumenical Movement (or other such movements) (2 Cor 6:14 18; Rev 18:4); and Zion Serangoon, until the revamp of its website recently, also has the same statement of belief/faith and has removed this probably because it never really held to this doctrine; and also a third BPCIS member, Shalom BPC, has a similar statement in Article 4.2.12 of its constitution at http://www.shalombpchurch.org/wp/?page_id=2242; do all three BPCIS churches (including Zion Serangoon when it had the same statement of faith on separation from ecumenism) hold/held on to the doctrine of biblical separation from the present-day apostasies of ecumenism and charismatism? And if they do (by virtue of simply the statements), would they not contradict your third sentence which implies that BPCIS churches do not hold to the doctrine of biblical separation? We should not speculate as to the group/faction the churches fall into, or create without good reason a new grouping known as Independent Faction.
As you are probably aware, but I will still repeat, one of the reasons for my deleting 2.1.3 Independent Evangelical Faction was its non-fit with 2.1 Fundamentalist and Evangelical which has two corresponding sub-sections in 2.1.1 Leadership of Fundamentalist Faction and 2.1.2 Leadership of Evangelical Faction. If 2.1.3 is added, the addition/aberration destroys the symmetry or balance of 2.1. For the same reason, I have deleted Independent Faction as there is probably no informal leader that you can justifiably name for this third independent faction. After deleting your edit, the independence you claim for all five churches (Life, Calvary Jurong, Faith, Evangel and Eden) still apply to them in the sentence: “While individual BP churches operate separately and independently post BP Synod dissolution, they fall essentially or broadly into two factions or groups.” The sentence does not preclude churches falling outside these two broad groups not being independent. Watchman1234 (talk) 10:48, 7 June 2021 (UTC).[reply]
@SunDawn::@Justanothersgwikieditor:, I hope 2406:3003:2073:478e:f9b9:db24:3e24:833c will not persist with listing the names of churches in a third grouping that cannot be substantiated and which disrupts the flow of the article. The article (in its current format) indicates that all churches operate independently after the BP Synod dissolution. However, if he/she persists, I hope that one of you can revert his/her edit (as I don’t want to have an edit war with him/her without any response or discussion). If you can put a ban on him/her, that would be better. If 2406:3003:2073:478e:f9b9:db24:3e24:833c is the same person as 128.106.188.57 and 219.74.19.150, as seems likely, it is like previously taking issue on David Wong, the BPCIS Secretary, reporting or announcing the admission of the 8th BPCIS member church when the source is so clear that David Wong is the person involved on an insignificant event/issue.Watchman1234 (talk) 11:28, 7 June 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Editing issue: Bible-Presbyterian churches (Singapore)

[edit]

@2406:3003:2073:478e:f9b9:db24:3e24:833c: It looks like you are obsessed with getting in your “Independent Bible Presbyterian Churches”.

As pointed out previously, all BP churches existing at the dissolution of the BP Synod operate independently thereafter; the bpcis website at https://www.bpcis.org.sg/about also says that the churches “go each their separate way”. There were/are broadly two groups of churches after the dissolution of the BP Synod – this was the consensus of the editors even before I started my edit in 2016 – with one under the leadership of the Tow brothers and another under the leadership of SH Quek/David Wong. The leaders are informal; they are regarded as the leaders because of their stature.

Even if you want to form a third group, you should name this group by a common characteristic and not simply call them “independent” as all sixteen churches are independent. Your cited source at The Singapore B-P Church Story does not name where each of all the 16 churches falls or doesn’t fall into – even with only two groups: “fundamentalist” and “evangelical/new evangelical”. Your claim that the majority of the churches continue to exist and they fall within your new group is unsubstantiated as you name only four churches and added “and others” at the end to misleadingly bolster your claim. But one of the churches did not exist in 1988 as Evangel BPC was registered only on 29/1/2009.

Simply giving the urls on the statements of faith for the four churches (https://www.lifebpc.com/index.php/about-us/what-we-believe, https://www.calvarybpc.com/statement-of-faith, https://www.evangel-bpc.org/statement-of-faith.html and http://www.faithbpc.org.sg/3023478) does not substantiate your claim that they are not sailing with the fundamentalist or the new evangelical group. (The Zion churches, including Zion Serangoon BPC (until the revamp of its website recently), have the same statements of faith. On the strength of their statements of faith, are the Zion churches not in the fundamentalist group? In reality, as you are aware, they are in the evangelical/new evangelical group.) Even though certain persons have been named as the leaders of the fundamentalist and evangelical/new evangelical groups, churches with characteristics matching or not matching the characteristics of these two groups do not fall under their leadership except for those who become BPCIS members when BPCIS leaders have certain (limited) control over their members.

The VPP issue did not surface until 2002/3. If you care to read the article, you would have noted that Life BPC and Calvary Jurong BPC have been mentioned in the article as non-VPP. The source cited by you (https://www.lifebpc.com/index.php/about-us/our-stand) does not support your claim that Faith BPC and Evangel BPC (included in your “[t]hese BP churches”) reject “the theory of Verbal Plenary Preservation”. VPP, as you are already aware, has been adjudged by a neutral arbiter in the Court of Appeal – Singapore’s highest court – to be not a theory or heresy as it is not inconsistent with the Westminster Confession of Faith and it is also not inconsistent for a Christian who believes in the WCF and VPI to also subscribe to the VPP doctrine.

Citing only two sources (https://www.evangel-bpc.org/statement-of-faith.html and https://www.calvarybpc.com/statement-of-faith), you again use “these B-P churches” to include the other two churches as also practising the doctrine of biblical separation. The article has also indicated that Life BPC subscribes to biblical separation in the statement: “Jeffrey Khoo (True Life BPC) and Charles Seet (Life BPC) see no degrees in separation, as separation is simply separation and has the holiness of God – which has no degrees – as its premise.[126]" But you seem to just want to ignore and push in your point on separation to disrupt the flow of the article. There are forty-three BP churches; it is not possible to pinpoint which group where each church falls into. As such, there is no point for you to fight for the names of certain churches to be published without a just cause or reason.

Respectfully, you should be slow to edit if you cannot write properly or understand what is written. I’m always willing to help if your contribution is fair and reasonable even if not properly structured; the same would apply for many other editors. But your edits were sometimes perverse: changing what was right to go against facts or evidence.

For @SunDawn:@Justanothersgwikieditor, below was what 2406:3003:2073:478e:f9b9:db24:3e24:833 wrote (before my deletion):

“Independent Bible Presbyterian Churches

With the dissolution of the B-P Churches in 1988, majority of the B-P Church continue to exist with its existing name and autonomy. These churches doesn't sailing with both fundamentalism group nor neo-evangelical group. [61]. These B-P Churches namely as: Life Bible Presbyterian Church [62], Calvary Bible Presbyterian Church[63], Evangel Bible Presbyterian Church[64], Faith Bible Presbyterian Church [65] and others. These B-P Churches reject the theory of Verbal Plenary Preservation [66]. Besides, these B-P Churches also practice the doctrine of separation. Unlike BPCIS, these B-P Churches hold to the doctrine of biblical separation from the present-day apostasies of ecumenism and charismatism. [67] [68].” Watchman1234 (talk) 08:16, 26 June 2021 (UTC). @SunDawn:@Justanothersgwikieditor: Hope you can do something to the indiscriminate editing by 2406:3003:2073:478e:f9b9:db24:3e24:833c. See above. Watchman1234 (talk) 16:19, 26 June 2021 (UTC).[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

[edit]
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:45, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Watchman1234&oldid=1187218477"