User talk:Burntapple

Welcome!

Hello, Burntapple, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! --Flex (talk|contribs) 01:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Welcome to Wikipedia! Please read the above information about editing here before continuing on your anti-NewsMax jihad. In a flurry of edits, you've deleted a lot of NewsMax citations, noting in some cases that it equals "Yellow j." which I assume means "Yellow Journalism" in your mind. On Wikipedia, we don't edit out sources we don't like. Otherwise, someone could edit out all leftist blogs and news sources they found offensive, like Daily Kos, and there would be practically no sources left. Please remove bias from your edits, and - just some friendly advice here - spend some time watching others before editing further. - Nhprman 04:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand NewsMax clearly is yellow journalism to be honest. Although expunging all sources with low reliablity and high political bias is going too far, it's always good practice to consider where the source would come on a reliability scale (NewsMax would be somewhere between (unsubstantiatedconspiracytheories.com and unicyclopedia) and raise any issues you have with the validity of the source on the article's talk page. Often a more reliable source will be found, or in NewsMax's case, several more reliable sources each disproving the first source's claims. 81.132.51.215 10:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC) Elmo[reply]

Clearly, this is a situation in which political biases can run amok. Your opinion is yours, but it's not shared by many others. If we were to delete all the moonbat Leftist "news" sources cited in WP articles, some of which exist simply to make threats against Bush and Cheney, many articles would be denuded of sources faster than a rainforest. I'm not opposed to OTHER sources being added, but cleansing articles of sources one doesn't like, or thinks is somehow "unworthy" is a prescription for an edit war. - Nhprman 14:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response

I mean you no ill will, so I will suggest a couple of things: 1) That you find OTHER sources that say the same thing as Newsmax (unless, of course, you're simply disagreeing with what's being said - and that's an attempt to insert your own biases, and that's not allowed here) and 2) that, considering your oldest edit is April 27, you spend more time here watching and learning how things are done. Running from article to article "sanitizing" some and "tarnishing" others is a tactic some have used here in their first few days, but it often just results in a lot of reverts and warnings to those who do it. I'd also caution you from removing categories willy-nilly. There must be a consensus to do this. I'm not going to run around and revert everything you do. That would be childish. But some of these are a bit hasty, to say the least. I do wish you the very best of luck here! - Nhprman 02:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The God Who Wasn't There

From looking at the page it seems clear that it is critical of historical basis for Jesus. However, as the talk page indicates a RfC has decided it is not a propoganda piece. Please stop changing category criticism to Ant-Christian, there seems no basis for it. Specifically your edit summary of revert vandalism of those who disagree with you. Please raise a discussion on the talk page if required, no need for an edit war. Cheers Dmanning 01:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Homosexuality

Whatever about the veracity of that quote you're presenting (which, IMHO, is decidedly non-encyclopedic and very like original research), you are engaging in revert-warring. Please read WP:3RR to understand what is wrong with this. Best to bring your request to the talk page so other editors can evaluate it and we can all work towards consensus. Note that next time you revert to that revision, you'll be over your 24-hour limit and I will block you from editing further - Alison ☺ 06:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now you are over that limit. Understand that "friends" notwithstanding, what you are doing is wrong here - Alison ☺ 06:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also see that you're pushing the same links over on Lesbian and have already been warned over that. What are you trying to achieve here? - Alison ☺ 06:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia rules

You need to read the WP:3RR policy page as you have made multiple reverts to Brian Flemming and The God Who Wasn't There. It's frustrating when others don't agree with you but you need to take it to the talk page to discuss your points. This is how the consensus process works here. If you have any problems or question please don't hesitate to ask - you can contact me on my talk page or reply here as I shall watch this page. Sophia

Ask away - do you need help with policies or how to discuss the changes yoiu would like to see? Sophia 06:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR

You have violated the three revert rule on several Wikipedia pages. Should you do so again within 24 hours, I will immediately block you. FCYTravis 06:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response

On my talk page, you asked: Does this sound anti-Christian to you? "...People were encouraged to sneak in to Christian Churches and leave material (denouncing Christ) that he had produced. Flemming posted photos of these exploits on a website.[1] Burntapple 06:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Having looked beyond your question at the article and categories in question, I would not insist on putting this article in the category "Anti-Christianity." Indeed, I question the use of such a category -- it is necessarily inflammatory. Why is it not sufficient to place this in a the category "Criticism of Religion" (of which "Anti-Christianity" is a sub-category)?

No one like to be define by their opponents rather than their own views. In public discourse, we talk about people being pro-life, not anti-abortion or anti-choice. To insist that you must define the views of your opponents will always be seen as uncivil -- and it usually means that you don't fully understand their views. That is why I am not a big fan of the "Anti-Christianity" category. That said, the individual in question is certainly antagonistic, and is certainly critical of religion. I guess I don't know where I would draw the line between being critical of religion and being "Anti-Christian." Also, you are quickly approaching the three revert rule one this one, so you may want to take a break from it for a while. I hope I have been able to be of some help to you. Pastor David ^† _(Review) 15:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haditha massacre, 3reverts, vandalism etc...

If you're going to keep on deleting the documentry section of the haditha massacre article and deleting all mention of newsmax(I know NewsMax is unreliable but it's the only source on this we have) sources, then could you at least mention why you are doing this on the article's talk page? Do you have valid concerns about the information there, are you just attention seeking or what? Elmo 10:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

3RR of Lonnie Frisbee's Homosexuality

Greetings, I realize that we might not agree on many subjects it's hard to deny a filmmaker's documentary about Lonnie (rather than just a point from the film's FAQ) in which several folks who knew Lonnie including his wife shared that he did lead an active gay life at times and sometimes, at least, stated that Lonnie thought it was no big deal. When I have reverted your changes i have made more than a fair effort to include your insistence that homosexuality is sin as I felt it was important to the article in context, the same consideration for others work is probably not a bad idea. Further when you have made revisions you have deleted other information about the article as well including a reference link. Also there is an active talk page where your point of view could be raised more constructively.Benjiboi 19:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Three Revert Rule

You and are currently one revert away from violating the three revert rule in your content dispute with User:Benjiboi on Lonnie Frisbee. See the following diffs four your reverts:

First: diff
Second:diff
Third: diff

Please consider this a warning. I have no interest in getting involved in this content dispute, but will report both of you to WP:AN/3RR if you don't both knock it off. There are better ways to solve content disputes - talk it out, and invite other editors to offer their opinions (you may try asking for a third opinion, editor assistance, or make a request for comment. Also, please note that "rvv" as an edit summary means "reverting vandalism" - a content dispute is not the same as vandalism. Noticing the other warnings here, I can only assume that you are aware of the three revert rule, and encourage you to please find better ways to solve content disputes. Thanks for your consideration. Pastor David ^† 19:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lonnie Frisbee

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on Lonnie Frisbee. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from editing. - talk page, please! Same goes for your adversary - Alison ☺ 20:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well FTR I wouldn't call Benjiboi my adversary. So far he and I have just been having a mature disagreement about a man we both aparently find interesting. Burntapple 20:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please engage in the discussion started at Talk:Lonnie Frisbee rather than continuing to revert. Pastor David ^† 20:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, but your mature disagreement is causing disruption. As Pastordavid suggests, both of you should sort it out on the talk page - Alison ☺ 20:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I would have wanted in the first placeBenjiboi 20:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, you guys both have the opportunity now :) Any more reverts from either of you and it's block time. Benjiboi - you're already over the limit - Alison ☺ 20:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kinda funny that some LGBT folks won't accept peer-reviewed published research on one occassion, but find blogspot perfectly reliable when it suits their needs. Hope it cheers you up that someone else has noticed this as well. I suspect that he was bi-sexual, but it's quite proper to insist upon reliable sources. Rklawton 01:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The blogspot in question was used as it was a more complete interview with a documentarian about the subject of the article, also the blogspot was written by someone who is not only within the media industry but also shares a Christian POV so I felt it was balanced enough to be a part of the article. Also I did consider if Lonnie was bisexual but no research has yet supported this and everyone so far confirmed that he said he was gay. Benjiboi 22:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Ted Roosevelt IV & Navy Seals

How did you find out that Ted IV was in the Navy SEALS down to the recruit class he was in? Just curious from a Jarhead. SEALS? Well THAT's something TR and Ted Jr. would have been proud of! Thanks SimonATL 17:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lonnie Frisbee was gay

The blogspot in question was used as it was a more complete interview with the documentarian about the subject of the article. Also the blogspot was written by someone who is not only within the media industry but also shares a Christian POV so seems well-balanced. The blog is the full version of an interview, hardly a pundit off on a tangent.

There was no supposedly about him socializing as a gay man even during his preaching days, is referenced in the article and can be seen in the documentary movie, FRISBEE: The Life and Death of a Hippie Preacher, trailer as well as the documentary movie itself.

Also I did consider if Lonnie was bisexual but no research has yet supported this and everyone so far confirmed that he said he was gay and closeted. Also please stop removing LGBT categories. Benjiboi 23:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

p.s. Please consider using an article's talk page if you want to change item's in the article that have already been discussed rather than just bundling numerous changes and referencing a concern with only one.

WTF?

I get accused of being someone by a troll and that's enough for be to be banned? Burntapple 21:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser

How about you use this on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SlamDiego

In case you haven't figured it out he has multiple accounts and if you think I'm bad you should see the things he claims on them. Burntapple 21:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW J.S. shove it.

Naw. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your Reversion of the Protest Warrior Article

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Protest Warrior, you will be blocked from editing. Regardless of the truth or falsehood of the statement about analysts' predicting the Republican defeat in 2006 (obviously they were right), there is no cause-and-effect relationship between that and the Protest Warrior forums losing members. It is therefore an extraneous, irrelevant fact, and an obvious attempt at POV trolling.