| Revision as of 23:04, 22 December 2005 editAQ-q7z8DGvEpyYKe (talk | contribs)141 edits The Willow Creek Article← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:01, 23 December 2005 edit undoMshuflin (talk | contribs)215 edits Response to the MediationNext edit → | ||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
| In reference to the "Quality" tag, I think that the article is largely a set of disparate parts. It needs rewriting to tie the parts together, extensive restructuring and editing to unify the voice. Also, strong POV along the lines of a polemic rant, though fortunately confined mostly to the talk page, is a problem from BOTH SIDES. Please please PLEASE be civil; I don't want to see blood on this article. --] 23:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC) | In reference to the "Quality" tag, I think that the article is largely a set of disparate parts. It needs rewriting to tie the parts together, extensive restructuring and editing to unify the voice. Also, strong POV along the lines of a polemic rant, though fortunately confined mostly to the talk page, is a problem from BOTH SIDES. Please please PLEASE be civil; I don't want to see blood on this article. --] 23:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC) | ||
| == Response to the Mediation == | |||
| Fides Viva, | |||
| This is concerning the Willow Creek article. I posted it here and also on that talk page. | |||
| I asked for a mediator from the ] and ] responded with this following: | |||
| "Mediator response: | |||
| Greetings, These criticisms are from legitimate sources, therefore they should not be removed. However, I agree that the section is overbearing, messy, long, and needs cleanup, but not removal. Put the criticism back in, tone it down, and clean it up. It may be necessary to move much of it to its own page." | |||
| *Here are the changes which I have made based on this. I really do hope that this gives a NPOV to the article and gives both sides of the argument an acceptable solution. Steven reccomended cleaning up and toning down of the criticism. I have done so. I also, limited the links to only ones which specifically mention Willow Creek. | |||
| *Steven reccomended that it "may be necessary to move much of it to its own page." I have done so. It seems that much of the criticism is for not just Willow Creek, but also, Bill Hybels, A Purpose Driven Life, Saddleback Church, and several other issues surrounding ]. for that reason, I have created a page called ] This is essentially the main body of criticism from the Willow Creek article. I have linked to this new page in the "See Also" section of the Willow Creek Article, as well as the ] article. The ] article still needs to be cleaned up significantly, but it is off to a good start. | |||
| I sincerely apologize if any of my remarks on this talk page have been inflamatory in anyway. I hope we can all come to a happy medium! | |||
| --] 00:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 01:01, 23 December 2005
Hi! welcome to Misplaced Pages!
Hope you enjoy contributing to Misplaced Pages. Be bold in editing pages. Here are some links that you might find useful:
- Try the Tutorial. If you have less time, try Misplaced Pages:How to edit a page.
- To sign your posts (on talk pages, Votes for deletion page etc.) use ~~~~ (four tildes). This will insert your name and timestamp. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes).
- You can experiment in the test area.
- You can get help at the Help Desk
- Some other pages that will help you know more about Misplaced Pages: Manual of Style and Misplaced Pages:Five pillars, Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view, Misplaced Pages:Civility, Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not, Misplaced Pages:How to write a great article
I hope you stick around and keep contributing to Misplaced Pages. Drop us a note at Misplaced Pages:New user log.
-- utcursch | talk 09:53, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Re:Hi and help!
Hi! The person who deleted your edits has already been warned (See: User talk:68.121.254.253). If he/she continues to bug you, you can always report the matter at Misplaced Pages:Vandalism in progress and the IP user will be banned. utcursch | talk 05:33, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
- Thankyou for your reply. That helps me. I wasn't sure what to do or where/whom to turn to. I will keep an eye on it. Fides Viva 06:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
The Willow Creek Article
I don't really want to take sides, but I stand by the NPOV tag. Perhaps it should have been a "This article is a battlefield" tag. I myself have introduced very little content, but rather have been trying to tone down content introduced by people on either side of the argument. I can feel the sparks, and I feel like a moderator. I don't really want this role, as it can be quite emotionally taxing. However, the Willow Creek article is the only one on my watchlist, precisely because it seems to need constant moderation. Rather than hacking away strong viewpoints, try to bring the two sides into balance with each other.
In reference to the "Quality" tag, I think that the article is largely a set of disparate parts. It needs rewriting to tie the parts together, extensive restructuring and editing to unify the voice. Also, strong POV along the lines of a polemic rant, though fortunately confined mostly to the talk page, is a problem from BOTH SIDES. Please please PLEASE be civil; I don't want to see blood on this article. --John Hupp 23:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Response to the Mediation
Fides Viva, This is concerning the Willow Creek article. I posted it here and also on that talk page.
I asked for a mediator from the Mediation Cabal and Steven McCrary responded with this following: "Mediator response: Greetings, These criticisms are from legitimate sources, therefore they should not be removed. However, I agree that the section is overbearing, messy, long, and needs cleanup, but not removal. Put the criticism back in, tone it down, and clean it up. It may be necessary to move much of it to its own page."
- Here are the changes which I have made based on this. I really do hope that this gives a NPOV to the article and gives both sides of the argument an acceptable solution. Steven reccomended cleaning up and toning down of the criticism. I have done so. I also, limited the links to only ones which specifically mention Willow Creek.
- Steven reccomended that it "may be necessary to move much of it to its own page." I have done so. It seems that much of the criticism is for not just Willow Creek, but also, Bill Hybels, A Purpose Driven Life, Saddleback Church, and several other issues surrounding megachurches. for that reason, I have created a page called Criticisms of Mega Churches This is essentially the main body of criticism from the Willow Creek article. I have linked to this new page in the "See Also" section of the Willow Creek Article, as well as the Megachurch article. The Criticisms of Mega Churches article still needs to be cleaned up significantly, but it is off to a good start.
I sincerely apologize if any of my remarks on this talk page have been inflamatory in anyway. I hope we can all come to a happy medium!