Request made by: Potters house 05:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the issue taking place?

...The Potter's House article

Who's involved?

...Antaeus Feldspar

What's going on?

...There has been an ongoing battle since the sites conception over links. I have claimed that many of the links are poor quality and used to delete them wholesale. Then I was warned that if I do this I will be banned, so I complied. Then I discovered other links (also of similar quality) that refute some of the accusations made against the Potter's House church. I posted these on the article Rick Ross under critisism and they were deleted. I couldn't understand why if I deleted links of similar quality I was almost banned but if they do it on Rick Ross' site nothing happens. So I continued to put them up regularly. I requested help, but was told that the links are poor quality.

After a while the guy on Rick Ross' site checked out the Potter's House artcile and discovered the link's that I had been putting up on the Rick Ross site were there, so he deleted them. I have tried to discuss the problem with him but have found him unreasonable. I suggested that ALL poor quality links be removed or none at all, he refuses to talk to me but just continues to delete links, or add links I delete which are of the same or poorer quality.

This guy seems to follow me around wiki chopping and changing everything I do. I have tried to revise the Johnny Lee Clary article also Wade Watts. Tom Papania I tried to write something about Rick Ross' accusations of the Potter's House, but they were deleted straight away. (added later - I am getting tired of having to get others in to solve problems with this guy - yes I am inexperienced and am a bit sloppy, but this guy just deletes whole pages that I have been working hard on. It is very discouraging - and a waste of time because most see my side of the story clearly and overide him - can he be warned somehow? I have been warned for less!)

What would you like to change about that?

...Either have all poor quality links removed, or have all remain. It seems totally unfair and it is not a neutral stance to keep some links but delete others. And please get this guy off my back.

Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?

...I am not sure how you work, but I will be checking my talk box daily.

Hey, Nick! When were you, you know, planning to let me know that you'd opened this case? Hmmmm? Opening a case against another party and not notifying them -- not a real indicator of acting in good faith. -- Antaeus Feldspar 13:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I don't have to recuse, because I've edited Rick Ross and helped newbie PH with his story of reconciliation with Rev. Watts. But ... Perhaps the thing to do is provide a source for the POV that Ross is gay and also explain why it matters. Is there, for example, that claim's Ross' supposed homosexuality inclines him to make disparaging remarks about religious people? (Perhaps as retaliation for perceived "homophobia" in their religion?)

Anyway, PH is a newbie and probably just needs someone to explain (gently) how things work around here. --Uncle Ed 14:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as warning you, you will not even discuss the issue in PH talk nor in your own talk but you seem to have ignored it and then deleted it. I suppose that you think I will just tire and stop. But I wont. You have displayed bias in deleting some "poor quality" links but retaining others. I can understand why you want the links removed, as I have the same problem, i.e. slander. The Yahoo Groups, Slam the door, and Geocities sites are by quacks, (this is proven by their demise from previous Yahoo groups etc, [see the other poor quality link in critics]) and yet their sites are nowhere near the quality of the one you continue to delete. So I put two Rick Ross links up, which according to you are worthy, but you then deleted them also!! I thought you supported Ross (or so it seems). I thought that by having his links that would solve the problem of neutrality, but you delete the lot without any talk or consideration to the work involved. I do tire at the waste of time spent trying to mop up where you have been, but know and trust that Wiki staff will come to the rescue. By the above words it seems you just have a beef with me personally. I think you should leave all feelings out of this and we should be mature about this. Potters house 16:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also the article is not just about the homosexuality of Ross, but it deals with many many different things, and provides much court evidence and photographic evidence - which is more concise than Ross' site when "examining" the Potter's House Church. Potters house 16:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Potters_house and go to each site, look at the history and see how Mr Antaeus Feldspar continually seems to stalk me! This guy never offers any suggestions or help, but the usual complaint of no sources or links simply everything is not good enough and deletes it. I tell you one thing though, I will have some of the best linked and best sourses on wiki if he keeps this up! Potters house 17:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your main problem is that you can't relax a bit (maybe drink less coffee or tee? I'm not saying this as an attack, my personal experience is that one might react very strongly on minor issues). The Potter definition is quite balanced, IMO. There is criticism, but also a response to it. Sounds fair to me. And the rest of the article seems to be rather Potter-sided, so be happy about it. --Tilman 19:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, your history shows that you guys continually post against scientology (one of Rick Ross' favorite groups to mock - and I suppose rightfully so) and other groups Rick sees as cultic which is fine. But you telling me to "just relax" etc is not dealing with the problem. Why don't you guys have a cuppa tea and allow me to put ALL links concerned with this article and Rick Ross article up, not putting some of Rick Ross' favorites. So allow me then to put the link to http://www.rrexposed.u2k.biz/ up on the PH & Ross articles and we can all have a cuppa tea and sing "we are the world" if you like. The real issue here is being avoided by you guys. By this statement, it is obvious that you see this type of bias and vandalism as common place. At least we ARE actually talking here - which is a great start.

You said - "There is criticism, but also a response to it. Sounds fair to me. And the rest of the article seems to be rather Potter-sided, so be happy about it." I am not interested in the Potter's House site being in "Potter-sided," but I am interested in it being a truthful and neutral article. I know that by just having FACT it will appear "Potter-sided," much like the link and discussion I put up on the King James I of England article - it shows the other side of the coin on the issue of the Kings sexuality and allows people to make up their own response. The link is also much more factual that the previous posts and if you notice I didn't deleted anything but contributed. Just because the information (facts) may show popular opinion is wrong, doesn't mean that it is biased. From all of my research King James I of England was never a homosexual but a victim of racial slurs and propaganda. But one must have ALL the facts to find this out - and once all facts are provided the reader can then make a reasoned logical conclusion. Which is why I felt it was fine to leave all other parts of the article intact. Rick answers his critics and I linked to this but even that was deleted. Guys you are not allowing any criticism about Ross but allowing much criticism about the Potter's House, which is mostly tabloid press rot and unfounded rumor.

If you guys allow "poor quality" links saying that that the leader of any group is a jerk moron liar etc, and I try to provide a balance by putting other "poor quality" links to show the contrary, this is fair. But if you delete all "poor quality" links saying that that the leader of any group is a jerk moron liar etc, then I will not have a need to have other "poor quality" links to show the contrary. So if you don't mind - have a chill pill and I will put up these "poor quality" links or have "poor quality" at all! Potters house 01:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was doing what these guys are a while back but was reproved see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:218.214.37.212

Why a double standard? Why am I rebuked for deleting links but they are not? Potters house 02:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because we 1) are somewhat relaxed and 2) don't put up such poor quality links. For example, we wouldn't let wikipedia link to "Wayman is gay" or "Waylon Smithers is a better christian than Wayman Mitchell" --Tilman 06:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then obviously you have never read far enough to see what is on the links there:

The Cracked Pots site was made by Neil Taylor; he is no longer in the Potter's House Church and slanders it by using any means possible.

See Neil lie about his identify as soon as the group started. He stared to use different usernames because he knew his daughter used the group. He used multiple usernames (to confirm his lies) to get his daughter out of the church. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/thecrackedpots/msearch?query=neil&pos=140&cnt=10

I discovered who he was after he used multiple usernames to deceive people but had his IP exposed: His multiple user names http://groups.yahoo.com/group/thecrackedpots/message/2506 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/thecrackedpots/message/2502 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/thecrackedpots/message/2408 So I exposed him. Here are some other links: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/thecrackedpots/message/2345 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/thecrackedpots/message/2346 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/thecrackedpots/message/2364 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/thecrackedpots/message/2390 This next post was Neil pretending to be my ex girlfriend who said that I may had a homosexual attraction to Neil. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/thecrackedpots/message/2400

Need I say more Tilman? I think the RR site is tame compared to what is being thrown at me (let alone the rest of the people in the 1400 churches in CFM). I am a devoted Christian Tilman, how do you think this feels to be labelled like this? This is only the tip of the iceburg - but irrelevant to our discussion here. These people have violated almost every Potter's House pastor in the same way. Yet they are proven to be frauds! That is why people like Ross shouldn't parrot everything on the net, most of it is these guys with a different face. The will do anything to slander CFM! Potters house 13:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You said: Because we 1) are somewhat relaxed and 2) don't put up such poor quality links. For example, we wouldn't let wikipedia link to "Wayman is gay" or "Waylon Smithers is a better christian than Wayman Mitchell" --Tilman 06:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you said that now, because that is exactly what they say.Potters house 13:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW I did try to talk this through with Antaeus_Feldspar dispite his post

"Hey, Nick! When were you, you know, planning to let me know that you'd opened this case? Hmmmm? Opening a case against another party and not notifying them -- not a real indicator of acting in good faith."

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Antaeus_Feldspar&diff=68124415&oldid=68104668 Potters house 13:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't have a link to this page. --Tilman 15:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The yahoo links don't really prove anything. Just people accusing a lot.

That you insist on bringing up the rrexposed link (likely a scientology smear job) makes it highly doubtful that this Potter Club is a "good christian" organisation. --Tilman 15:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know who made the RR site. If you read it you will see that he is a christian. So you seem to think that this is all OK? Potters house 18:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, who made it? --Tilman 18:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the group Slam the door on the potters house http://groups.yahoo.com/group/slamthedoor_on_the_pottershouse/ they have this: http://us.a2.yahoofs.com/groups/g_15533306/.HomePage/__sr_/1304.jpg?grvEu3EBImFz9jnH

Is this usual mediation? Silence? Potters house 08:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1) You still haven't answer my question "who made it?". 2) The link above mentioned isn't linked from the definition, so what? Plus, this is a cartoon. One should have to see the context. That cartoon is, at most, a bit tasteless fun, but not libellous. It shows "Mitchell" making a joke. It doesn't claim that he did visit prostitutes. (I don't know if he did) --Tilman 09:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok 1) I won't answer who made it until we sort the rest of this out, because that is a side issue. And 2) I am just showing you examples of how they slander the church.

Think about it, if this was a Black, Jewish, or Muslim minority religious group, and the leader was being made fun of in cartoons, they made out that anyone attending is brainwashed or in a cult, anyone who opposes them is labelled a Gay and made fun of and threatened, they mock, gossip, slander and lie all the time which is proven by all their own yahoo groups, it wouldn't be tollerated as a "quality link"! Just think on that for a while! Potters house 13:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"I won't answer it" is uncivil since you offered it. This isn't helpful at all.

The above links are irrelevant to the dispute, it's just a forum. It's impossible to understand who is posting anyway, and whether you or the critics run sockpuppets or nobody. The external sites don't claim that you are a homosexual. It's you who linked to a site claiming that Ross is one. --Tilman 15:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing that I cannot seem to get anywhere with this, I am forced to make my own Rick Ross site exposing him see www.newsau.com. The man who made the anti potters house site IS THE SAME GUY WHO MADE rrexposed!!

See why I will not settle for you people being the victims? You say that this guys is not credible when refering to Rick Ross, but is credible when refering to the Potter's House.

I don't really want to make a large exposure site of Rick Ross, but it seems I am being driven in that direction.

I was hoping you people would be rational Potters house 05:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence for this allegation? ("The man who made the anti potters house site IS THE SAME GUY WHO MADE rrexposed") This doesn't make any sense. Plus, there are several "anti potters house" sites --Tilman 05:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forget it, you are not being co-operative, xo I will just go ahead and create the anti RR site myself. You can't say I didn't try to work through this! Bye Potters house 12:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like this one is being worked on at the talk page. Props to Addhoc for his contributions. Closing case since it's stale and problems seem to be working out on the talk page. CQJ 17:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]