User talk:Jonnswift

Revert issues[edit]

Please cite reasons why you are deleting cited cases about Rick Warren. This is not a place for opinion.--Jake 07:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outside of the criticism of Rick Warren, the information is based in factual information that can be substantiated. The conjecture and opinion being attached to this record should be deleted until proved beyond blogger opinion.

Maybe a complete deletion is a bit too WP:BOLD. I understand you are a new user, and certain guides and tutorials on Wikipedia will help when having revert conflicts, following the rule of three (WP:3RR), and when deleting material just because of questionable citations. The citations CAN be replaced with "Citation needed" tags, the section in question, however, is based upon a factual framework.--Jake 07:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the lesson, but leaving a statement up that may have address identity (considered citiation) does not make it appropriate. The information your citing may be pieced together through blogger comment, statements of opinion, and even quotes but what's missing is context, understanding, and validation. Therefore, this comment will be continually deleted until such research and validation are done.Jonnswift 07:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your abhorrently excessive deletions have stopped the article on Rick Warren from including key arguments over his involvement in popular moral issues. It seems you fail to see this article from a neutral point of view (WP:NPOV). Please reconsider the factual content of the ideas of arguments, and not seeking opinion in a statement just because of personal offense, pride, or whatever it may be.--Jake 08:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jake....your opinionated and intentional demeaning of another human being. A biographical page is not the forum to include key arguments over a man's involvement in popular moral issues. It tells me more about your biased point of view more than Warren's. There's plenty enough information about where Warren stands on the issue you're trying to associate him with rather than objectively state his position against. Why don't you use your time to put that in the article.Jonnswift 08:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would be more than happy to include Warren's counter-point to the situation. Unfortunately, I have not seen or heard any statement from Warren denying that he influences Murdoch in any way. I do not seem to demean anyone in this situation. I do not intend to seem opinionated, because I avoid articles that I would be generally opinionated on (For instance, I have never contributed to Bill O'Reilly's page, or the NAFTA page.) As for your statement that this doesn't belong on a biographical page, see the Criticisms page about biographies. I do believe, since Warren is famous for his morality-related profession and opinion, this is an important topic. The statements made were neither false, nor were they harmful to him. Any harm done to Warren through that article would be fault of the actions of Rupert Murdoch, and (if it does exist) the influence Warren has had on Mr. Murdoch's personal decisions. Please do not think I am intentionally degrading anybody, as I'm trying to keep this strictly to the point of adding to the factual database of Wikipedia.--Jacob 08:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]