User talk:DGR16

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, DGR16, 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 messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! BustOut (talk) 10:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Martyn Percy

Please edit the existing page instead of copy/pasting a rendered copy of the page and then editing it as you did at Martyn Percy. --Bamyers99 (talk) 16:28, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Martyn Percy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Labour Party. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Martyn Percy

Hi DGR16! Please stop adding so much irreverent information to the Martyn Percy article. It is supposed to be a biography of HIM not of the places that he has worked. This information should be added to the appropriate article, eg details about Ripon College Cuddesdon should be made to that page. Also, none of your edited have been referenced. As a biography of a living person, any additions need to be verifiable through a reliable source. If you are able to add so much unsourced information to the article because you are Martyn Percy or are very close to him, please read this explaining conflict of interest; to summarise, if this is the case, then you are restricted to removing incorrect information from the article and making suggestions for expanding the article on its talk page. Hopefully this makes sense and I look forward to your future (cited!) edits, Gaia Octavia Agrippa^Talk 13:50, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again! You've added some more unreferenced material to Percy's article again, so I have had to remove it. If you do find a reference that states that he is Broad Church, please do added it (with a citation) to the article. Also, may I point out that you should only mark your edits as "minor" is they are indeed tiny edits (eg spelling corrections or adding a link, not adding content).

I also can't help but notice that you have only ever edited his article, except for a small number of edits to related articles to add details about him. This does strike as odd, so I would be very grateful if you could give a short explanation. Gaia Octavia Agrippa^Talk 00:18, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

March 2016

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Martyn Percy, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Gaia Octavia Agrippa^Talk 18:04, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Gaia Octavia. I am bemused by your note. Most of Percy's writings on Anglicanism are 'broad church', and the Times Literary Supplement specifically praised his last book on Anglicanism for this. So did George Carey - its on the book cover. But you keep deleting the footnotes and the references. You seem determined to classify Percy as a 'liberal' theologian, but what is your evidence for this? This is an inaccurate slur. Percy holds to classic Christian doctrines and articles of faith. If you can reference that he doesn't, then by all means call him a 'liberal'.

At last! Hello! I am slightly confused as to why you would think liberal is a slur? It is no more a slur than calling someone an evangelical.

It doesn't matter what he writes about, its about how he himself identifies and to a certain extent how others perceive him. And by others I don't mean you or I but people who's views count in the world of Wikipedia (see here). You have referenced a book he has written but no quote or page number to support that he states in it that he is broad church. This isn't good enough: it wouldn't be good enough in an academic context and it isn't good enough on Wikipedia. Could you please find a quote from that book to back up your statement. Or is it just you opinion, having read that book, that Percy is broad church?

The second reference you have given is a table of contents. This has no value as a reference I'm afraid. The only evidence it provides is that this particular edition reviews the book you previously cited. I hope you see why this is a problem. If you can provide a quote from the article that supports him being broad church, that would be great.

As for you asking for references that he isn't broad church, perhaps references that he is liberal would be better. I have reverted your edits so you should be able to read the previous references that support him being labelled as "liberal". Just in case you've got slow internet or whatnot, here is a quote backing this up; "The prayer then, for all liberals in the third Millennium, is that we will continue to recover and rediscover the graciously liberal God". That's Percy identify as the "we" of "all liberals", hence it is evident that he himself identifies as liberal.

Also, I don't suppose you created another account did you? Specifically User:SCMeyrick.

One final thing, I hope you don't consider this as me attacking you. Or me trying to keep something in his Wikipedia article that I think is right but have no evidence in support. This is about the 'rules' or Wikipedia, specifically this one. Everything added to a living person's biography on Wikipedia must be backed up with WP:Reliable sources. If you can find the evidence that contradicts the evidence that he is liberal, then please correct the article. If not, then it is just your opinion and therefore WP:original research and doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Gaia Octavia Agrippa^Talk 00:02, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Gaia Octavia. My point is that Percy has 'liberal' views (arguably) on only one subject (sexuality). The overwhelming majority of his writings identify him as Broad Church, and as a moderate middle-way Anglican. I will cite references. More generally, someone who works closely with evangelicals would not be classed as a 'liberal' in the Church of England. Your comprehension of the nuances of these positions feels rather distant from the subject, I must say.

PS - for example, your edit now reads that Percy is 'liturgically' "Broad Anglican" - but is otherwise 'liberal'. This makes no sense. How can you possibly know what his liturgical style is? have you observed it closely? And why would someone worship in one style, and believe and think theologically another. His worship/liturgy is indeed 'Broad' - it matches his theological outlook.

Hello agaain, Gaia Octavia.I have been taking a careful look at your notes and observations on Percy’s entry. I think I have a better understanding of what you are trying to say. Let me begin by saying that I believe myself to be one of only a few who have read everything Percy has written. Later this year and next, there will be two conferences devoted to his work – one here, and one in the USA – and I hope to be at both. It is unusual for a scholar to have a conference on their work whilst they are still alive.

Percy has a lot of evangelical followers. He also does a lot of work with evangelical church leaders in the UK and US – he is a respected voice here.

Having looked further at your continued insistence and assertion that Percy is a “leading proponent of liberal theology”, I have two comments. First, Percy has written almost no theology. Nearly all his writing is ecclesiology, not theology. Or it is commentary on religious subjects in the social sciences (e.g., his work on conversion theories). None of that work is either ‘liberal’ or ‘conservative’. It is, rather, an articulation of an irenic ‘via media’ polity – the middle way, if you like. Second, all we know about Percy’s stance on Christian doctrines can only be found in his devotional writings. And his writing on the incarnation, atonement, resurrection, ascension, Trinity, etc – classic Christian doctrines – is basically orthodox.

If you think Percy has written ‘liberal theology’ – that is, liberal views or ideas on doctrines of God – then can I suggest you cite this, and that we agree on a separate section on this. But as I say, I don’t think Percy has written much theology at all, if any. He writes and teaches on ecclesiology – and owes much to his mentor, Daniel Hardy, on this – another ‘broad’ and ‘generous orthodox’ writer. I have amended his entry accordingly. Especially to make the point about his work in ecclesiology rather than theology. If you have any examples of Percy writing some ‘liberal theology’ – that is, liberal views or ideas on doctrines of God – then as I say, please do cite and reference these.

So, in summary, I have removed the reference to ‘broad church’ – and replaced it with “Anglican comprehensiveness”. Please refrain from saying ‘leading proponent of liberal theology’. He does not write about liberal theology (i.e., doctrines, etc), and quite clearly holds to classic, orthodox beliefs on the major tenets of Christian faith incarnation, atonement, resurrection, ascension, trinity – clearly evidenced in his devotional writing. I hope this helps.

Gosh this has turned into a bit of a mess. Please add colons (:) to the start of each paragraph so that they indent. You should have added three colons to follow on from my two. Also, please sign after your comments (Gaia Octavia Agrippa^Talk 14:36, 8 March 2016 (UTC)) so that people can see who says what.[reply]

I am confused as to why you think I'm Indian and Evangelical?

Regardless, please read [[WP:original research]|this]] and this. Having read those, you will now see that your edits have not been appropriate. Please refrain form any other edits that are based on your own opinions, you need actual evidence to back things up. If you continue to edit as such, you will receive a temporary block to act as a cool down period. Gaia Octavia Agrippa^Talk 14:36, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, yes. Apparently your views are fact, and mine opinion. But simply assert, and you do not argue. And I think Wikipedia is interested in facts, primarily. As I said earlier, Percy has written almost no theology. Nearly all his writing is ecclesiology, not theology. Or it is commentary on religious subjects in the social sciences (e.g., his work on conversion theories). None of that work is either ‘liberal’ or ‘conservative’. It is, rather, an articulation of an irenic ‘via media’ polity – the middle way, if you like. All we know about Percy’s stance on Christian doctrines can only be found in his devotional writings. And his writing on the incarnation, atonement, resurrection, ascension, Trinity, etc – classic Christian doctrines – is basically orthodox. If you think Percy has written ‘liberal theology’ – that is, liberal views or ideas on doctrines of God – then can I suggest you cite this, and that we agree on a separate section on this. But as I say, I don’t think Percy has written much theology at all, if any. He writes and teaches on ecclesiology – and owes much to his mentor, Daniel Hardy, on this – another ‘broad’ and ‘generous orthodox’ writer.

I have amended his entry accordingly. Especially to make the point about his work in ecclesiology rather than theology. If you have any examples of Percy writing some ‘liberal theology’ – that is, liberal views or ideas on doctrines of God – then as I say, please do cite and reference these.

Please refrain from saying ‘leading proponent of liberal theology’. He does not write about liberal theology (i.e., doctrines, etc), and quite clearly holds to classic, orthodox beliefs on the major tenets of Christian faith incarnation, atonement, resurrection, ascension, trinity – clearly evidenced in his devotional writing. I hope this helps.

please address the substantive

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, you may be blocked from editing. Gaia Octavia Agrippa^Talk 16:14, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

....................................

I thought the idea of this aspect of wikipedia was to come a reasoned consensus through discussion? But all you do is assert, reassert, and then threaten. I keep adding reliable sources. I assume Percy's own writing constitutes such? This is nothing to do with my personal opinion. You keep saying Percy is 'a liberal' - but apart from some writings on sexuality, there is no evidence for this. I don't see why your assertion should be treated as correct, and the actual evidence (his writings) disregarded.

I have also read the 'rules' or Wikipedia. So if you can find the evidence that contradicts Percy's 'via media' ecclesial commitment – it is there in the overwhelming majority of his work – then please provide it. You will now see that your edits have not been appropriate. Please refrain from any other edits that are based on your own opinions; you need actual evidence to back things up. If you continue to edit as such, you will receive a temporary block to act as a cool down period.

Reference errors on 8 March

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Martyn Percy page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

March 2016

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Martyn Percy. Stop adding to his the article based on your own reading of Percy's writings; that falls under original research. Only add things things that can be backed up with reliable resources. If you can find a quote ion his writings stating he is broad church that would be great. If not, things will stay as they are as third party sources have described him a liberal. Gaia Octavia Agrippa^Talk 13:05, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The actual references to 'broad church' have been removed for the moment. But they will be reinstated from published book reviews in due course. I think you were asked - politely - to justify 'liberal' in relation to any core Christian doctrine. Again, you assert, reassert, then threaten. I am puzzled by the energy and time you put in to your insistence on narrating a relatively minor Oxford theologian as a 'liberal'. Anyone would think you had an agenda...?

Please sign your comments with ~~~~ so it is known who is saying what. I don't have an agenda, I simply trying to keep articles following WP:BLP. The assertion that Percy is liberal will remain in article because that is what the sources state; that is the justification. If you do find sources that state that he is broad church, please do add them. That is what I have been trying to point you towards in all my comments. If they are printed sources, please include quotes (see Help:Citation Style 1 for the different citation templates). But please remember, that it is not your interpretation that counts but point-blank what the sources say. Gaia Octavia Agrippa^Talk 15:06, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PS see above for the quote in which Percy self-identifies as a Liberal Christian. Gaia Octavia Agrippa^Talk 15:07, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, DGR16. 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]

June 2017

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Martyn Percy, you may be blocked from editing. Stop changing his churchmanship from liberal to broad church. Your changes are not supported by references, and they are removing/altering statements that are. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 10:00, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, DGR16. 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

Hello, DGR16. 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]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, DGR16. 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]

September 2021

Hi DGR16, you recently added content to the article on Martin Percy which had already been reverted twice in the last month due to lack of Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Please request changes on the article talk page using Template:Request edit and ensure that they are reliably sourced. TSventon (talk) 11:01, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article block

You have been blocked indefinitely from the article Martyn Percy for persistently making unsourced and tendentious edits. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bishonen | tålk 11:07, 6 September 2021 (UTC).[reply]

I received your email; as a matter of policy I do not discuss Wikipedia matters off wiki. You are free to request unblock as instructed by Bishonen above. Be aware that it is against Wikipedia policy to out the identity of editors on wiki(unless they outed themselves first). If another user whom you believe is a particular individual is harassing you through their Wikipedia editing, you should contact the Arbitration Committee via email, see this page for contact information. 331dot (talk) 19:28, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]