User talk:Qewr4231

Our policies, for example original research, prevent us from including personal accounts. Here are some helpful links:

Welcome!

Hello, Qewr4231, 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! Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

March 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to International Churches of Christ has been reverted, as it appears to have removed content from the page without explanation. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. — Jeff G. ツ 21:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

warning

Please stop adding repeated information into different places of the same article. - Altenmann >t 22:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies Qewr4231 (talk) 06:45, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 22:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of discussion at Administrators' Noticeboard

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Bobby Tables (talk) 23:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions, including your edits to Kip McKean. However, please be aware of Wikipedia's policy that biographical information about living persons must not be libelous. Any controversial statements about a living person added to an article, or any other Wikipedia page, must include proper sources. Thank you. Kevin (talk) 01:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

August 2010

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on International Churches of Christ. Thank you. Please remember that personal attacks, like this one, should be avoided. Andreasm ^{just talk to me} 01:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 03:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. The next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did to International Churches of Christ, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Also, remember WP:3RR Andreasm ^{just talk to me} 06:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. What I am trying to point out is that the Wikipedia article on the International Churches of Christ before I made any edits to it seems to be biased towards the International Churches of Christ and not neutral or encyclopedic. Most of the links go to websites operated by the International Churches of Christ and reputable websites that go to websites not owned by the International Churches of Christ somehow get deleted. Basically the article seems to be written by International Churches of Christ members with a pro-ICOC slant. The article is not neutral at all and that is what I am trying to get across. I was a leader in this cult, and now group of cults, and was in this for 6 years. I know what I am talking about. Ask any ex-member of the ICOC, and there are many, and they will tell you that they were used up and spit out by the cult.Qewr4231 (talk) 23:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Basically members of the ICOC and new movements are using this ICOC wikipedia article on the ICOC as an evangelism tool to recruit more people into the ICOC movements. Qewr4231 (talk) 23:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Albert Baird

The article Albert Baird has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Questionable Notability

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Minima c (talk) 07:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

International Churches of Christ history goes back to 1979 when Kip and Elena Mckean, Al and Gloria Baird, Bob and Pat Gempel decided to form their own organization called the International Churches of Christ. Al Baird is still with the International Churches of Christ working in Los Angeles as an evangelist and Deacon/Elder. Al Baird chose not to leave with Kip Mckean when Mckean broke away from the International Churches of Christ. The problem with the International Churches of Christ and new movements spurned from it is that most of the information is either for or against it. There is very little encyclopedic information on these cults. I know because I was leader in this cult and I was in it for 6 years. Ex-members always leave the cults in anger because the cults eat people up and spit them out. Current members are brainwashed into being 110% for the cults. The International Churches of Christ cults are basically pyramid schemes with the money going to the top of the pyramid. Also, the ICOC cults lie about their history and don't tell the truth.Qewr4231 (talk) 23:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Albert Baird

The article Albert Baird has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not a notable minister.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. St Anselm (talk) 02:39, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

International Churches of Christ history goes back to 1979 when Kip and Elena Mckean, Al and Gloria Baird, Bob and Pat Gempel decided to form their own organization called the International Churches of Christ. Al Baird is still with the International Churches of Christ working in Los Angeles as an evangelist and Deacon/Elder. Al Baird chose not to leave with Kip Mckean when Mckean broke away from the International Churches of Christ. The problem with the International Churches of Christ and new movements spurned from it is that most of the information is either for or against it. There is very little encyclopedic information on these cults. I know because I was leader in this cult and I was in it for 6 years. Ex-members always leave the cults in anger because the cults eat people up and spit them out. Current members are brainwashed into being 110% for the cults. The International Churches of Christ cults are basically pyramid schemes with the money going to the top of the pyramid. Also, the ICOC cults lie about their history and don't tell the truth.Qewr4231 (talk) 23:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

August 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion/New religious movements work group are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 17:01, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did not know that. Thank you for telling me. I am sometimes not sure where to post information. Qewr4231 (talk) 23:23, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate comment on the Keeping Up With The Kardasians talk page

I added the the content preceding my signature three and a half years ago (read the timestamp). Some idiot vandal added the phrase you are up in arms about. Take it up with them. Or just edit it out if it bugs you so much. Also, when commenting on a talk page, you should sign your name with four tildes ( ~ <---- a tilde). Happy editing. Buck O'Nollege 21:22, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

September 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:International Churches of Christ are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 10:45, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Information

The following template contains a lot of useful links to pages that explain how Wikipedia works. Arcandam (talk) 22:34, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Qewr4231, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking

if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field with your edits. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Arcandam (talk) 22:34, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: Edit a page • Upload and use images • Create your first article Intuitive guide to Wikipedia • Article Creation Wizard
Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Help desk: A Wiki Styled page to ask questions on Help directory: A comprehensive list-style help contents page
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons List of policies • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • List of guidelines Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Simplified manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Peer review • Featured content
Miscellaneous
User pages • Talk pages Awards a registered contributor can achieve and award Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Hello, Qewr4231. You have new messages at Talk:International_Churches_of_Christ.
Message added by Arcandam (talk) 23:27, 5 June 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time.[reply]

Warning

You continue to insert information into the International Churches of Christ page that is not of an encyclopaedic nature, please understand Wikipedia is not a gossip column, blog, facebook page or a forum. It is an Encyclopeadia, treat is as such! JamieBrown2011 (talk) 14:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for posting my own negative experiences in the ICOC. Qewr4231 (talk) 06:54, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

JamieBrown2011 are you a knowledgeable and credible source on the ICOC?? Do members of the ICOC make knowledgeable and credible sources on the ICOC? Do ICOC leaders make knowledgeable and credible sources on the ICOC?? (I'm not saying you are a member or leader in the ICOC. I have no idea who you are.) I'm just wondering what a credible source on the ICOC is. Qewr4231 (talk) 06:51, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New Dispute on ICOC Page

There is a new dispute on the ICOC article page. You may undo the work of an editor you disagree with so long as you justify it on the talk page. I think you might find some of the recent edits disturbing. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 16:53, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia ICOC page is so messed up. It's hard to tell what is fact and what is opinion anymore. I think JamieBrown11 and some past editors such as TransylvanianKarl are ICOC members. The ICOC is a fairly secretive organization in that people who are not part of the ICOC don't really know what goes on in the ICOC. As a person that has been a member of the ICOC for six years, and as a person familiar with Kip Mckean, what the ICOC presents as fact and what really happens in the ICOC are two separate things. Many of the facts in the Wikipedia ICOC article are only verifiable by hardcore members of the ICOC, and the facts are not verifiable by people outside of the ICOC. The Wikipedia ICOC page has so many opinions and unverifiable facts that the article is simply unreliable and is definitely not encyclopedic in quality. Qewr4231 (talk) 19:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article Feedback Tool update

Hey Qewr4231. I'm contacting you because you're involved in the Article Feedback Tool in some way, either as a previous newsletter recipient or as an active user of the system. As you might have heard, a user recently anonymously disabled the feedback tool on 2,000 pages. We were unable to track or prevent this due to the lack of logging feature in AFT5. We're deeply sorry for this, as we know that quite a few users found the software very useful, and were using it on their articles.

We've now re-released the software, with the addition of a logging feature and restrictions on the ability to disable. Obviously, we're not going to automatically re-enable it on each article—we don't want to create a situation where it was enabled by users who have now moved on, and feedback would sit there unattended—but if you're interested in enabling it for your articles, it's pretty simple to do. Just go to the article you want to enable it on, click the "request feedback" link in the toolbox in the sidebar, and AFT5 will be enabled for that article.

Again, we're very sorry about this issue; hopefully it'll be smooth sailing after this :). If you have any questions, just drop them at the talkpage. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) 21:34, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dead links

Please don't remove dead links for no reason. There's a possibility the links can be repaired, as was the case at International Churches of Christ. Jackmcbarn (talk) 13:35, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the dead links on the International Churches of Christ page are still dead links and have not been repaired. How long do Wikipedia users and readers have to wait for a link to be repaired or fixed? Qewr4231 (talk) 22:01, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which ones are still dead? Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:26, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they are fixed NOW, but it's been months if not over a year that some dead links were left unfixed, and they are just now being fixed. My point is that this is a long time for people to leave dead links in a Wikipedia article. If I hadn't pointed out the dead links the dead links would never have been fixed. Qewr4231 (talk) 22:34, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, but that's how Wikipedia works. When random people see a problem, they're encouraged to try to fix it themselves. Nothing's wrong with what happened. Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:19, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If there was nothing wrong with what happened, then why did you state, "Please don't remove dead links for no reason. There's a possibility the links can be repaired, as was the case at International Churches of Christ" ??? Then you said, " . . . that's how Wikipedia works. When random people see a problem, they're encouraged to try to fix it themselves."

Basically, I saw a problem, and did my best fix it. You agreed (see comment above) that this is how Wikipedia works. So you are scolding me for doing what you agreed is right? Or is it that you are saying that only certain Wikipedia users have the right to edit pages?? Qewr4231 (talk) 00:03, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Using the ICOC Talk page as your SOAPBOX

Your comments have been removed from the ICOC talk page because they are not according to Wikipedia policy and violate WP:SOAPBOX — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamieBrown2011 (talk • contribs) 10:13, October 19, 2013 (UTC)

Who is an authority on the International Churches of Christ? And who has a neutral point of view? I bet if you conducted a survey of people not in the ICOC most people would either (1) have no knowledge of the ICOC, or (2) have a negative view of the ICOC. Qewr4231 (talk) 00:07, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

December 2013

Hello, I'm Dillard421. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to America's Test Kitchen because it appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Dillard 421♂♂ ^{(talk to me)} 03:42, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Qewr4231, normally I would respond inline to the talk that you left on my page, but I want you to see this. It appears that you have copy and pasted information from The official ATK Website. Doing so is a violation of Wikipedias Copywrite policy. Please see Wikipedia:Copy-paste for more information:

In 99.9% of cases, you may not copy and paste text from other sources into Wikipedia. Doing so is a copyright violation and may constitute plagiarism. Always write the articles in your own words and cite the sources of the article. Copyright violations are often speedily deleted.
—Wikipedia:Copy-paste

I appreciate your willingness to edit the Wikipedia and to read Talk pages, not many people do so. The Wikipedia can be confusing when it comes to knowing just the right way to edit it. Please don't interpret my criticisms negatively, I assume good faith when it comes to editors and really appreciate all you do. If you are ever confused as to how you should format an article when adding content, please refer to the Wikipedia Manual of Style. As always, you can ask me any question on my talk page, or ask your question on this page by placing {{help me}} before the question. As for the comment that Wikipedia wanted you to add the content to the article, the Wikipedia is a community edited project, rather than a single entity. It is likely that a user wanted that on the page, but didn't quite know how to add it, so they placed a comment on the talk page. Thats what its for afterall, to talk about improvements on the article. If you ever need to test changes, you can test in your very own personal sandbox, located at the top of the page. Thanks Again! Dillard 421♂♂ ^{(talk to me)} 23:26, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. Qewr4231 (talk) 06:43, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting

Your edits on the ICoC article over the past 24 hours have been disruptive and you have broken the 3RR. You will be reported. JamesLappeman (talk) 18:56, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

JamesLappeman you are a bully. Someone keeps erasing the changes I make to the ICOC Wikipedia entry. I am trying to insert information on Henry Kriete and the Henry Kriete letter which is factual information that really did happen to expose a lot of evil and wrongs in the ICOC. Why not tell the truth about what happened in the ICOC? Your bias towards a rosy article that makes the ICOC look good instead of inserting factual information skews your point of view. Your point of view is not neutral. Qewr4231 (talk) 23:11, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is what happened:

JamieBrown2011, you reverted my insertion of information about the Henry and Marilyn Kriete letter many times because you said the source I used was not valid. The source I used were Henry and Marilyn themselves on their own website: http://henrykriete.com/2013/12/29/london-the-letter-and-looking-back-marilyn-kriete/

This is Marilyn and Henry Kriete's continuing nine part series on the letter that they wrote in their own words. Henry and Marilyn Kriete are the most valid source on the letter that they wrote.

" 07:28, 23 January 2014‎ JamieBrown2011 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (61,327 bytes) (-2,467)‎ . . (Removed material from Self Published sources. Will try and find RS for the Henry Kreite letter and discuss on Talk Page before including)"

This revert makes me think that (1) you didn't even check the source I used or (2) you are trying to keep any criticism of the ICOC out of the main article.

I quote from WP:RS

"Definition of a source

The word "source" when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings:

          the piece of work itself (the article, book);
          the creator of the work (the writer, journalist),
          and the publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University  Press).

Any of the three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people."

WP:RS says that a credible source is "the creator of the work (the writer, journalist)." The source I used was Henry and Marilyn Kriete's own website Gloriopolis (http://henrykriete.com/). Further I sighted the exact source that the material came from: Gloriopolis (http://henrykriete.com/2013/12/29/london-the-letter-and-looking-back-marilyn-kriete/). This is a nine part series written by Henry and Marilyn Kriete, on their own website; however you called what WP:RS calls a reliable source, unreliable. Qewr4231 (talk) 06:37, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

JamieBrown2011 and you are harassing me. Every time I make an edit to the Wikipedia ICOC article my edits get reverted even when I have a reliable source which was the case in this situation. Qewr4231 (talk) 06:55, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. JamesLappeman you are not collaborating and basically you and JamieBrown2011 are reverting my post which was sourced correctly. Further you are trying to keep any mention of the Henry and Marilyn Kriete letter and the abuses mentioned in the letter out of the ICOC main article. Qewr4231 (talk) 00:02, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do not blank other editor's talk page comments.

In almost all situations it is not appropriate to remove other editor's comments from talk pages. In the rare occasions where it is appropriate, you must indicate your rationale in the edit summary. see WP:TPG. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't know Qewr4231 (talk) 14:31, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you work for Wikipedia. I went to your user talk page and discovered otherwise. Anyway, thanks for your help. Qewr4231 (talk) 20:10, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Do you know your query on the article about Justin Bieber? You said that "licence" was spelled wrong.

FYI: No, it wasn't spelled wrong, "licence" is the British English, and Canadian English way of spelling the American English way for "license". Happy editing! Cheers!-- Allied Rangoon‧talk 00:56, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page chatter

I have reverted your recent edits at Talk:Kip McKean because they are not constructive. The first version of your comment is absolutely absurd and unfounded. If you have a beef with me, you are free to take it up at ANI, but you are not at liberty to soapbox on article talk pages or to spout your unfounded hypotheses about other users. I don't understand what goal you are trying to achieve on the talk page, but I'll remind you that article talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article. Whatever "discussion" you are engaged in is confusing, doesn't seem to be oriented toward improving the article, and has taken far too long--you've been at it since April and it's now July. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyphoidbomb: If there is good proof/evidence of this should this be included in the Kip Mckean page? As a former member of the International Churches of Christ when Kip Mckean was the leader of the ICOC, Kip often told us to use the definition of the word cult when someone calls the ICOC a cult. By using the definition of the word cult, as suggested by Kip Mckean, ICOC members would supposedly be proving that all Christian churches are cults. Qewr4231 (talk) 21:21, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of people and scholars worldwide think that Kip Mckean is a cult leader. A lot of people, scholars, and ministers worldwide think that the ICOC, the ICOC without Kip Mckean, and any new Kip Mckean movements are cults. Should this not be placed into the article? The ICOC says they are the only true church and that people who are not members of the ICOC are going to Hell. Is that crazy or what? Qewr4231 (talk) 22:04, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

November 2014

Please do not attack other editors, as you did on Talk:International Christian Church. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Diff: "But you probably already know this and want to only portray a flowery positive view of Kip Mckean" Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:02, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

January 2015

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. Diffs: In this edit you use Talk:Gangsta rap as a soapbox. The purpose of article talk pages is to discuss improvements to the article, not for your general opinions and observations about the subject. In these edits you add links and more commentary to a discussion that has not been active in two months, with no clear discussion of ways to improve the article. Please stop. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:00, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The comments were:

Kip McKean's International Christian Church: CULT https://www.facebook.com/ICCisaCult Qewr4231 (talk) 18:01, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

10 Signs of an Abusive Church http://www.crosswalk.com/blogs/christian-trends/10-signs-of-an-abusive-church.html Qewr4231 (talk) 18:14, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

A former leader in Kip McKean's newest cult talks about lies, corruption, hypocrisy, and abuse in the ICC "El Ministerio Latino" http://www.exicc.org/ Qewr4231 (talk) 18:18, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Let's me explain why I posted the comments on the talk page.

The facebook page proves that people other than myself consider the ICC to be a cult and Kip Mckean to be a cult leader.

The "10 Signs of an Abusive Church" article immediately made me think of the ICC and Kip Mckean after I read the article. Kip Mckean and the ICC do all of the ten things listed in the article.

And the true firsthand eyewitness account from a former ICC leader under Kip Mckean is pretty hard evidence that Kip Mckean is a cult leader and that the ICC is a cult.

Qewr4231 (talk) 19:14, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I am sure has been explained numerous times, articles must be presented from a neutral point of view, and supported by reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Blogs, fringe websites, and the first-hand accounts of people who have become disenchanted with the church typically do not qualify as reliable sources as Wikipedia defines it. This is especially true when no such "cult" attributions have yet been supported with references from reliable main stream media outlets, reliable books, etc. It is imperative that you read WP:FRINGE. Further, it is extraordinarily difficult to discuss things with you when you disappear for months at a time. I don't see how anything can be resolved or communicated to you satisfactorily this way. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:40, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed what you added to Talk:International Christian Church as well. Talk pages are there to discuss improving the article with content provided by reliable sources. They are not there for you to present original research or synthesis or opinion on the article subject. Wikipedia doesn't care what topics you have associated with others, or what you think about the article subject, or what you have come to a clear conclusion on. Please stop this and read the guidelines. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 19:44, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just improve the article by telling the truth. Kip Mckean is a cult leader. Everyone knows it. Both of the movements he started are cults. He wants money, power, and sex. Qewr4231 (talk) 19:51, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A simple web search brings up results that point to Kip Mckean being a cult leader:

1. Kip McKean and his International Christian Church is it a cult? https://biblebasedmindcontrolcults.wordpress.com/2013/04/11/kip-mckean-and-his-international-christian-church-is-it-a-cult/

2. http://www.cultwatch.com/icc.html

3. 10 Things Concerned Parents Should Know About Kip McKean and the ICC http://www.exicc.org/2014/10/concerned-parents-kip-mckean-icc.html

4. Kip McKean and his favored elite--"Living Large" The ICC takes in many millions of dollars each year, which is derived from the often sacrificial giving of its members. But is all this cash flow really responsibly used to "advance the 'Kingdom of God'?"

http://www.culteducation.com/group/983-international-church-of-christ/10112-kip-mckean-and-his-favored-elite-living-large.html

5. Kip McKean, Cult Founder https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zXkt-ZbdVQ

6. Their defense of NOT being a Cult! http://www.letusreason.org/OCC22.htm

7. Aging “cult leader” Kip McKean attempting comeback http://www.cultnews.com/2006/10/aging-cult-leader-kip-mckean-attempting-comeback/

8. Witnessing to Disciples of the International Churches of Christ http://www.equip.org/article/witnessing-to-disciples-of-the-international-churches-of-christ/#christian-books-2

I can continue posting hundreds if not thousands of links that talk about Kip Mckean being a cult leaderQewr4231 (talk) 19:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you can present a neutrally and impartial paragraph that has cites to reliable sources discussing the church as a cult then please propose it on the talk page. That means;

no emotive phrasing
nothing from blogs, fringe websites or random youtube videos. When presenting controversial information Wikipedia needs to be 100% certain of its accuracy and veracity. It needs good reliable sources.
no sources that don't specifically mention the International Christian Church. You cannot combine sources to make them demonstrate a conclusion not specifically within either source.
nothing that is presented as being what "everyone knows" or what is clear to you personally. Everyone doesn't know, and what you think is irrelevant.

--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:04, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:20, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

This is related to your continued soapboxing on the ICC/McKean situation: it's gone beyond the point of being helpful, and by continuing your soapboxing, you're making things harder for everyone else who's at least somewhat involved here. Believe me, there are things I'd like to complain about if it would help, but doing that wouldn't help anyone: it would only get in the way. We're happy to have your help if you're interested in participating within our norms, but advocacy of a position isn't within those norms, and if you return to doing this once the block's over, you may be blocked for a much longer period of time. Note my church membership; I'm not at all familiar with ICC/McKean. Nyttend (talk) 02:56, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And for the record, I also am not familiar with this church or the former leader Kip McKean. I happened upon these articles solely in my capacity as a Wikignome and as an edit reviewer, which should be exemplified by my 30,000+ edits in disparate subjects, (very few are even remotely related to religion) as well as by noting in the edit history of Kip McKean that my first edit on this subject was around February 24, 2014‎ where I approved a good faith edit made by Anomalocaris. I am not a content creator at either of these articles, so any assumption of conspiracy/agenda is unfounded and absurd. My job is to make sure we present a neutral point of view and don't glorify WP:FRINGE/WP:UNDUE perspectives. "Cult" assertions need to be supported by main stream sources, not built up into angry diatribes or link farms on talk pages. I understand that you are a former member and that you have a beef with the group, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place for you to vent. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:10, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Your edit here is inappropriate, and since you don't seem capable of understanding what constitutes a reliable source, or that your edit might constitute a privacy violation, I again am forced to go to ANI to seek administrative sanctions against you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:26, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I used two reliable sources. Source #`1 proves that Kip Mckean owns a $650,000 condo Source #2 is also a reliable source. These are both public websites. Anyone can go to these websites and view them. Qewr4231 (talk) 12:15, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Qewr, it's clear from your actions and your words (especially ""Ministers should not become rich being ministers. Kip Mckean is doing what Jim Baker and other frauds did") that you're doing your best to discredit this guy. Maybe he deserves to be discredited, but messing with an encyclopedia is not the way to do it, especially by including unencyclopedic information in the articles. Due to your persistent abuse of the encyclopedia, this is your final warning: any more agenda-driven editing will result in an indefinite block from editing Wikipedia, without further warning. Nyttend (talk) 21:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

How do I delete my Wikipedia account when I no longer wish to have an account with Wikipedia? Qewr4231 (talk) 23:50, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Qewr4231, except in extremely rare, exceptional circumstances (which don't apply here), and when a username is usurped, we don't delete accounts. Wikipedia actually doesn't delete much of anything on here, unless there's a possible legal issue. Since there are many who leave Wikipedia, and decide to return to editing years later, we have a general policy not to delete accounts, so as to preserve the userspace and statistics of an editor , should they decide to return.

The best you can do, if you wish to leave the project, is simply to abandon the account. If you ever decide to return, it will be here waiting for you. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 00:11, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Only warning

Cyphoidbomb has pointed me to recent edits in which you've restarted the problematic editing for which you were previously blocked. Let me strongly suggest that you find another topic on which to edit, or that you begin editing this topic in accordance with community norms: any more of this will result in a much longer block than before. Nyttend (talk) 18:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Blocked as promised for edits like this: you're using talk pages and the reference desk for blatantly non-encyclopedic purposes. Again, once the block expires, you're welcome to participate, but any more disruptive editing on the topic of Kip McKean will probably result in an indefinite block. Nyttend (talk) 02:03, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything untrue that I have said about Kip Mckean? Qewr4231 (talk) 00:09, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Truth" is irrelevant. You have for years been using Wikipedia as a soapbox your unhappy religious experiences, and that's not what this project is here for. If you want to ramble about Kip McKean go and get a blog like anyone else. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:53, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reblocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of ½ year for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

This is, again, related to your continued anti-McKean advocacy. I've decided not to follow through on the previous statement, so this block will expire in six months. Nyttend (talk) 18:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from leaving messages on my page. Thank you. Qewr4231 (talk) 00:06, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is Wikipedia's talk page, not yours. You are free to file an unblock request, but any discussion unrelated to your block will result in your talk page access being revoked. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:53, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Qewr4231. 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]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Sorry man, but since you still seem to be having problems controlling the soapboxing about Kip McKean, the ICoC and the ICC, I've got little choice but to recommend a straight-up topic ban. You are encouraged to respond to the ANI case. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:06, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Qewr4231. 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]

Q, you need to consider your history.

Q, look at your talk page. It is riddled with people complaining about your contributions. While you may be well intended, you in my limited experience come off in a manner that is best defined as "overkill." I'm not going to WP:[SOAPBOXING] or anything here.....I'm moreso just talking man to man. My encouragement to you is, if you really are done with the Coc, Icoc , BCC, ICC, Doc, CCC, or whatever-CC, maybe just let it go. Like, completely.

ps- You posting your FULL COMMENTS in the talk page -summery section isn't really appropriate. No one needs to read things twice. Just post the summery. Ie: Posted a reply, or question. =)

Coachbricewilliams28 (talk) 20:23, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coachbricewilliams28 yes I know you are a hardcore supporter of the ICC Qewr4231 (talk) 20:19, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Even now, you are deflecting. Dude, humble out. I didn't say anything about your precious target of wrath, merely that you need to follow protocol. Coachbricewilliams28 (talk) 07:21, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Qewr4231. 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]

January 2019

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 12:46, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Qewr4231 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

your reason here Qewr4231 (talk) 02:43, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Looking at just one recent example, this one at Talk:Kip McKean (which I have now rev-deleted), if you really can not understand how grossly inappropriate it is to post misconduct allegations based on a blog and an anonymous email (and you really should be able to understand after the time you have been here), then no, sorry, you should not be editing here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:05, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Please explain. Why have I been blocked from editing? Taking a look at my Contributions log I have contributed on many different pages in the hopes of making Wikipedia more accurate. Qewr4231 (talk) 02:43, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To reviewing admins: This user has been engaged in talk page soapboxing since 2009, especially as it pertains to criticism of Kip McKean and the ICOC/International Church of Christ. See this ANI report from 2017. For years he's basically been using Wikipedia talk pages as an outlet to vent his frustration for being a part of this organization. I'm pretty sure it's been explained to Qewr4231 numerous times what does and doesn't qualify as reliable sourcing, and he's been told numerous times not to soapbox on talk pages, but yet again here he uses the Kip McKean talk page to drudge up some alleged gay scandal dating back to the 1970s, where the controversy is only mentioned by a faceless blog, in contravention of WP:UGC, and a strong violation of WP:BLP. And here he raises the question again, you know, because you have to spread the scandal around until it gets some legs. The user was at least told back in 2015 that we don't use blogs as references, so why he's bringing one up in 2018 is nonsensical. This user has demonstrated little in the way of actual contributions at Wikipedia. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:39, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

{unblock | reason=your reason here Qewr4231 The truth is that some of the editors of the ICC and Kip Mckean pages are current ICC members. These current ICC members will edit out anything negative, factual or not, in order to keep the ICC pages and Kip Mckean pages completely positive and unfactual. Tons of ICOC, ICC, and Kip Mckean references are used which are not encyclopedic in quality at all. I have asked questions in order to stimulate conversation of whether or not things should be included in the main articles. The ICOC and ICC both claim: "The ICC has its roots in a movement that reaches back to the period of the Second Great Awakening (1790–1870) of early nineteenth-century America. Barton W. Stone and Alexander Campbell are credited with what is today known as the Stone-Campbell or Restoration Movement. There are a number of branches of the Restoration movement and the ICoC was formed from within the Churches of Christ.[8] Specifically, it was born from a "discipling" movement that arose among the mainline Churches of Christ during the 1970s.[9] This discipling movement developed in the campus ministry of Chuck Lucas.[9]" This is completely false and should be taken out of the ICOC and ICC articles. The ICOC, ICC, and Kip Mckean can not trace their organizations back to the 1700s. And what of my edits on other articles or talk pages other than the ICC, ICOC, or Kip Mckean? I have made edits on pages that have nothing to do with the ICC, ICOC, or Kip Mckean. Qewr4231 (talk) 05:02, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing admin: Here is Qewr responding to a five-year-old comment to opine about what a great series Northern Exposure was, apparently still unaware that talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article, not for general chatter. Here is Qewr complaining broadly that an article needs a grammar cleanup. The article wasn't protected, so why didn't he fix the problems? Just to complain? And again here Qewr is responding to years-old conversations, including one from 2007 to add random thoughts about creatine in bodybuilding. There's no clear focus on article improvement. Here he just wants to know if Tupac is in this Biggy Smalls video. In these three comments he's responding to discussions from 2007 to 2013, with no clear focus on improving the current version of the article. Here he argues with an IP editor who left a comment in 2011. Etc. Most of these examples are from his last 50 edits, the entirety of which have been to talk pages; Qewr doesn't spend any time at all actually improving articles and he should have been indeffed long ago. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:52, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Clipadilla1975, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Coachbricewilliams28 (talk) 15:17, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]