User talk:WordofGOD'Spower

April 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from Word of Faith. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 03:51, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

June 2013

Hi, I have some concerns about your recent edits to prosperity theology. You seem to be adding your own beliefs about prosperity theology and Kenyon, rather than reflecting what scholarly sources have written about the issue (WP:IRS). Our articles must adhere to a neutral point of view (WP:NPOV), so even if you are sure something is true you need to stick with what reliable sources say. Featured articles, such as this one, have high standards for sourcing, and editors are encouraged to seek consensus on the talk page before making major changes (WP:OAS). Please do not edit war (WP:EW), instead please try to follow best practices for reverting, WP:BRD. If you feel the article is misrepresenting Kenyon, please raise the topic on Talk:Prosperity theology instead of repeatedly changing the article's text. Thanks and let me know if you have any questions, Mark Arsten (talk) 05:04, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mark, I'm not sure if this is how I send you a message. The source material I quoted as proof is just as reliable as the source material that I countered EXCEPT the critical source material is a personal opinion of non-Word of Faith people, which is NOT neutral. SO there is a difference of opinion. If there are more anti-Word of Faith people in a discussion does that make the majority opinion correct? Would not Word of Faith people know more about the truth of their own theology than an outsider?

Also the scholarly sources against Kenyon are all repeating one another AND not actually making the statements that are posted. If a statement is made in an article it should be verbatim and not a biased alteration of the words.

Example, there is NO source that PROVES that Kenyon taught prosperity theology, especially as outlined in the article. SOOOOO, how can a statement about him be made on conjecture with NO solid proof?

Wikipedia is supposed to be a reliable source of information. The prosperity theology article conains anti-Word of Faith speech - almost like hate speech - and that can't possibly be considered unbiased.

Who do these concerns get raised to when this kind of bias is being promoted?

Thanks for contacting me. Please instruct me on how to contact you if this was the wrong way. june 29 (WordofGOD'Spower)

I've replied to you at Talk:Prosperity_theology#Kenyon. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:30, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]