User talk:FaithfulAccount

November 2022

Hello, I'm Padgriffin. I noticed that you recently removed content from Raymond C. Ortlund Jr. without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 16:55, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was not a mistake. It was deliberate and accurate. I am the one discussed in the entry! FaithfulAccount (talk) 17:03, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

October 2024

Hello, I'm Adakiko. I noticed that in this edit to Ray and Anne Ortlund, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Adakiko (talk) 12:33, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, FaithfulAccount. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Raymond C. Ortlund Jr., you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for article subjects for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{edit COI}} template)—don't forget to give details of reliable sources supporting your suggestions;
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicizing, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. ButlerBlog (talk) 19:44, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Based on your self-disclosure above as well as edit summaries such as this edit, you clearly have a CoI that you need to declare. Refer to the links above regarding conflicts of interest. Get your CoI disclosed properly, and then start working within the guidelines rather than simply edit warring over what is in the article. You're more likely to be blocked if you edit war on an article that you have a CoI with, so try to avoid that. Ask questions if you don't understand. ButlerBlog (talk) 19:49, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are continuing to edit an article with which you have a declared conflict of interest. Please read WP:CONFLICT. Propose and discuss any changes on the article talk page rather than implementing them yourself. ButlerBlog (talk) 18:40, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

I removed (1) factual inaccuracies, (2) incomplete accounts, (3) clunky narratives, replaced with simple, factual, complete lists, far easier for a reader to scan conveniently. It is you who have a conflict of interest, an adversarial agenda to push. Be honest with yourself. FaithfulAccount (talk) 19:12, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't do any more editing on the Raymond C. Ortlund Jr. article. If there are factual inaccuracies, I would love to know about them and fix them - please post them on article talk page. Likewise with the incomplete accounts, except that we need material published in reliable sources in order to complete them. St Anselm (talk) 01:07, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Help me understand how this works. You are speaking as if you have authority over this article. But I don't see any actual reason you have for telling me I shouldn't edit this article. Help me see that.

You also ask about inaccuracies. Here you go:

1. The two-fold mention of my playing football fifty years ago gives it a prominence it doesn't deserve -- as if playing a game were a significant part of my life. It wasn't. As a point of comparison, I also learned to play the Highland Bagpipes when we lived in Scotland. I learned to play soccer when we lived in California. I took up hunting when we lived in Georgia. But these -- and many other activities -- are not mentioned, nor should they be, because they do not merit attention in a brief summary of my 75 years of living. Singling out football narrates my story with a disproportion that is misleading.

2. Immanuel Church in Nashville was not started in our home. That is simply not true, and it insinuates that that church began in a more personal and even perhaps selfish manner than in fact happened. I have to wonder, Who presumed to know how that church got going? How is speculation a valid narrative for an actual life? Where is this editor getting their information -- or, better, their misinformation?

3. Why is the list of my published books selective rather than complete? Who made the selections, and why? By what criteria? On whose say-so? The incompleteness of the list is inaccurate, but it presents itself as a matter of fact.

4. Why is my ministry account strikingly incomplete? There is no mention of The Gospel Coalition, of Acts 29, of The Keswick Convention, of ministry in various parts of the world? Unlike playing football, these and other involvements were significant. My life cannot be understood without them. Who decides how my own story, which I know best, should be told? If someone did this to you, you would be asking the same questions, wouldn't you?

I edited the article two days ago, as I recall, to remove these oddities and re-establish a simple, accurate, non-distorted series of facts. But the article keeps on being edited to serve someone else's agenda -- someone who thinks they know my story better than I do. I have to wonder, Why do you guys care so much about my life narrative? How do you even have the time to persist in this? And if you say your motive is truth and facts, okay. But I care about that too. And I have the best access to the truth and the facts of my own life. I have no idea who you are and what your purposes are. What's going on here? FaithfulAccount (talk) 14:18, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I really wish you would stop suggesting that anyone editing this article other than you has some kind of adversarial agenda (your exact words). Please start assuming good faith when it comes to the actions of other editors, as we likewise do with you.

But I don't see any actual reason you have for telling me I shouldn't edit this article. Help me see that. This has been pointed out in numerous responses to you previously by me. You are not taking the time to listen to what is being said to you. If you would do that, we wouldn't be having this disconnect. It is very frustrating to say the same thing over and over and still have someone claiming ignorance of the policy. So one more time: read WP:COI. You are not a neutral party. If you are editing an article about yourself, then it is not neutral.
And I have the best access to the truth and the facts of my own life. - You are not a verifiable source of truth and facts. We are an encyclopedia, and verifiability is required (see WP:VERIFY). We get that from secondary sources; see WP:RELIABILITY. If you have knowledge of more and/or better secondary sources we can use, then you can help by pointing those out.
Where is this editor getting their information -- or, better, their misinformation? From the sources used, which are cited in the article for verifiability. If you don't like the way something is worded and it could be better worded to more accurately convey what the source says, that's fine - then make suggestions on improving it. But it has to align with what is verifiable through reliable sources. And as stated before, recognize that as a COI editor, you should be making these suggestions on the article talk page so that they can be vetted.
Why is my ministry account strikingly incomplete? There is no mention of The Gospel Coalition, of Acts 29, of The Keswick Convention, of ministry in various parts of the world? Because there are no verifiable secondary sources (and limited primary sources) that cover this. If you can help identify sources, then do so.
Discussion specific to article content needs to happen on the article's talk page.

ButlerBlog (talk) 15:04, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sincere question:

What is the verifiable source for this assertion? "After parting ways with Christ Presbyterian, Ortlund and his wife began a fellowship group in their home," etc., leading up to the birth of Immanuel Church? What is the verifiable source? FaithfulAccount (talk) 16:09, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's cited in the article (like everything should be): [1] Sincere question: Are you not able to see the inline citations of sources in the article and follow them? ButlerBlog (talk) 16:44, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~(ec) There isn't one, and I have removed it.~~ I have removed "their home" which was not in the Gospel Coalition article; everything else was. But if you had pointed out that it was wrong a whole earlier, that would have made everyone's life easier. Because you have multiple objections to the page (including undue weight) the actual errors got lost in crowd. St Anselm (talk) 16:48, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Actually, everything except "their home" was in the Gospel Coalition article. St Anselm (talk) 16:52, 31 October 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]

@StAnselm: You might have to edit and condense those two responses to clarify (since you removed all, then returned the corrected version). I get it, but I'm not sure FaithfulAccount will.

Done St Anselm (talk) 21:20, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note, in reviewing the TGC article, I do see "home" was not stated explicitly - that evidently was strictly inference in my reading of the text, so my mistake. Thanks for catching that. ButlerBlog (talk) 20:01, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That was a very easy mistake to make. St Anselm (talk) 21:24, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I appreciate your careful accuracy in this matter. It shows your good faith. The only nuance that remains problematic is, "... Ortlund and his wife began a fellowship group ...." I can see how the TGC article could be construed that way. It says, "During that year, three or four couple-friends began meeting with Ray and Jani on Sunday nights, 'to comfort and encourage us,' Ray said," etc. That statement in the TGC piece isn't clear about who began it all. But what the writer, Sarah Zylstra, intends to say is that those three or four couple-friends initiated the gatherings. My wife and I did not begin the process. Indeed, I was cautious, as the TGC article goes on to explain. So an accurate statement would be, "... Ortlund and his wife were invited into a fellowship group ...." It matters, because overly self-assured church start-ups have never been part of my ministry. Thanks. FaithfulAccount (talk) 21:56, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough - sorry about that. I have changed it to "...were involved with a fellowship group..." St Anselm (talk) 23:06, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I really appreciate it. FaithfulAccount (talk) 15:00, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Theology section needs work too. It makes no mention of my stated, overall theological system, thus inadvertently giving a misimpression of my beliefs. And there is nothing more important to my ministry than the shape and proportion of my theology. I am glad to provide external verification. FaithfulAccount (talk) 21:59, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your "Theology" section, by quoting at length one statement on one aspect of complementarianism, is like a newspaper reporter moving one detail from the nineteenth paragraph of a story up to the banner headline and ignoring entirely what should be that banner headline. An accurate account of "Theology" in my case is this:

As an Anglican clergyman, I subscribe wholeheartedly to The 39 Articles of 1571, enshrined in the ACNA Book of Common Prayer [https://bcp2019.anglicanchurch.net/].

As a former Presbyterian, I also revere The Westminster Confession of Faith of 1647 [https://www.pcaac.org/bco/westminster-confession/].

As a founding member of the Council of The Gospel Coalition, I also align with their Confessional Statement [https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/about/foundation-documents/#confessional-statement].

My "Theology" therefore is Anglican, with Presbyterian roots, and broadly Reformed. To sum it up in just three words, quoting J. I. Packer, "God saves sinners" ( quoted and developed on pages 21-22 of my book on Isaiah [https://www.crossway.org/books/isaiah-hcj-1/]. That is my Theology. That is the banner headline. I have also written 23 essays and articles, not to mention book reviews. How is it that one part of one of those 23 essays is lifted up as my "Theology"?

Please correct the misimpression your edit inadvertently creates. Thank you. FaithfulAccount (talk) 15:32, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And thank you for including my public declarations against racism. Essential to my ministry. I really appreciate it. FaithfulAccount (talk) 15:37, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a start-class article, not a finished work. A start-class article is described as "An article that is developing but still quite incomplete." (How we assess articles: WP:ASSESS) ButlerBlog (talk) 17:00, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For example, I fail to see what is misleading about the information you removed here. St Anselm (talk) 01:09, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here we are again, with nothing better to do with our time than haggle over this article about me!

So, okay.

You have re-inserted the notation about my playing football, despite my explaining the fact that I have entered into many such activities in my 75 years, though none of the others are mentioned, nor do they deserve to be. Plus, you haven't even been accurate. Trivial as indeed it is, I lettered in football in both high school and college. AND both do not at all merit a mention in a brief survey of my entire life. A Wikipedia article should not stoop to petty silliness.
You have changed the heading from "Theology" to "Theological views," but that changes nothing material to my previous objections. You have not corrected the mischaracterization of my theology/theological views in keeping with the public facts of my beliefs and convictions, as I have noted. In effect, you take a footnote in my theology -- from 33 years ago! -- and enlarge it into the big story." I wonder why. Is something other than an accurate account in play here? Please correct the misimpression you have created.
You have repeated the mention of my work in Bible translation. I see no point in the repetition.

I notice that the Wikipedia article of, say, Scot McKnight is done really well. It's informative, presumably accurate, and well written. Why is the article about me so poorly done but so staunchly defended?

Posting oddities and distortions, and then contending for them. Is this Wikipedia at its best? FaithfulAccount (talk) 12:50, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 2024

I thought that the following were made clear through previous discussions:

due to your conflict of interest, you should not be editing the Raymond C. Ortlund Jr. article
any potential concerns you may have should be discussed at the article talk page.

If it wasn't made clear before, it should be now. I have tried to help you understand our policies and guidelines while also trying to take into consideration your personal concerns, yet you refuse to work within our guidelines. If that continues, I will pursue some level of sanctions (probably article ban) to prevent further disruption to the encyclopedia. I'd like to avoid that if possible. ButlerBlog (talk) 06:34, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Well, here we are again. My thoughts: 1. The article I came up with is, in my opinion, better written. No needless repetitions of information, for example. Maybe my opinion is wrong. But I think the article you keep coming up with needs stylistic improvement. 2. My second thought is far more than style. The substance of what you have written distorts my record and my ministry. You have selected some footnotes in my life and turned them into banner headlines. And the banner headlines you have either submerged or minimized. The net result misrepresents everything I believe in. My link to my TGC podcast with Sam Allberry is where my deepest beliefs are on clearest display. But you have removed that link, effectively silencing my voice. I have to wonder, Why? Why do you wish to characterize me in a strange way? Excuse me, but I know more about my ministry than you do. Yet you keep correcting me.

So here's my idea. I am a Christian pastor. I am trying to follow Jesus, who taught us always to be kind. How about if you and I step out from behind The Online Machine and talk personally and directly with one another? What if we get to know each other a bit? We might discover that we have more in common than we think. We might even (gasp!) like each other. If you, like me, would prefer a human conversation rather than this bizarre exchange of online messages, which isn't working (obviously), then feel free to call. I promise to be kind. I ask you to do the same. How can that not work? Thanks. God bless. FaithfulAccount (talk) 15:00, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Repetition in content

Addressing your concern about repetition of content - I think this concern stems from not being familiar with our manual of style. The content you seem to be concerned with is what we refer to as "the lead". In correctly written wikipedia articles, the lead will summarize the key points of the article's contents. This is not "unnecessary repetition" - rather, it's by design. See MOS:LEAD. ButlerBlog (talk) 14:47, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]