Misplaced Pages

User talk:Fides Viva

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AQ-q7z8DGvEpyYKe (talk | contribs) at 23:04, 22 December 2005 (The Willow Creek Article). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 23:04, 22 December 2005 by AQ-q7z8DGvEpyYKe (talk | contribs) (The Willow Creek Article)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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:

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)