User talk:47.205.180.147: Difference between revisions

Line 72: Line 72:

== November 2025 ==

<div class=”user-block” style=”padding: 5px; margin-bottom: 0.5em; border: 1px solid var(–border-color-base, #a2ab91); background-color: var(–background-color-warning-subtle, #fef6e7); color:inherit; min-height: 40px”>[[File:Stop x nuvola with clock.svg|40px|left|alt=Stop icon with clock]]<div style=”margin-left:45px”>You have been ”'[[WP:Blocking policy|blocked]]”’ from editing for a period of ”’48 hours”’ for persistently ~~making~~ [[~~Wikipedia~~:~~Disruptive editing~~|~~disruptive~~ ~~edits~~]]. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to [[WP:Five pillars|make useful contributions]]. </div><div style=”margin-left:45px”>If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia’s [[WP:Guide to appealing blocks|guide to appealing blocks]], then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: <!– Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. –><code><nowiki>{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}</nowiki></code>.  [[User:ToBeFree|~ ToBeFree]] ([[User talk:ToBeFree|talk]]) 23:22, 2 November 2025 (UTC)</div></div><!– Template:uw-disruptblock –>

<div class=”user-block” style=”padding: 5px; margin-bottom: 0.5em; border: 1px solid var(–border-color-base, #a2ab91); background-color: var(–background-color-warning-subtle, #fef6e7); color:inherit; min-height: 40px”>[[File:Stop x nuvola with clock.svg|40px|left|alt=Stop icon with clock]]<div style=”margin-left:45px”>You have been ”'[[WP:Blocking policy|blocked]]”’ from editing for a period of ”’48 hours”’ for persistently [[:| ]]. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to [[WP:Five pillars|make useful contributions]]. </div><div style=”margin-left:45px”>If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia’s [[WP:Guide to appealing blocks|guide to appealing blocks]], then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: <!– Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. –><code><nowiki>{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}</nowiki></code>.  [[User:ToBeFree|~ ToBeFree]] ([[User talk:ToBeFree|talk]]) 23:22, 2 November 2025 (UTC)</div></div><!– Template:uw-disruptblock –>

Hello, I’m C.Fred, and welcome to Wikipedia. I appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Lakewood Church, it appears that you added original research, which is against Wikipedia’s policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. —C.Fred (talk) 15:07, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Lakewood Church. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. JeffSpaceman (talk) 15:19, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Lakewood Church. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. —C.Fred (talk) 15:27, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello C. Fred,

I apologize if you thought my edits were disruptive. Or my comments about an editor removing my edit without address the disruptive slander that is on the Lakewood page.

I implore you to adhere to the ethical standards expected of Wikimedia employees.

Although you thought my edit was disruptive, it was 100% truthful.

If you or JeffSpaceman felt it should be removed, which I was hoping it would be removed as well, at the very least one the slander it question should have been reviewed as well.

Instead, I prove to you and other users that Wikipedia’s editors are allowing slander on the Lakewood article. And you call my post disruptive and let the slander remain visible for all to see.

I understand, I included some facts that make Wikipedia look bad, but you’re only proving my point further by allowing the slander to remain on the article, which also did not cite a published existing source.

A simple search of Lakewood’s website shows the many forms of charity they offer.

https://www.lakewoodchurch.com/about

I apologize if my comments towards JeffSpaceman were insensitive, they were purely out of frustration. He immediately removed my edit and failed to address the slander.

I hope going forward we can improve upon the accuracy of Lakewood Church’s page.

And maybe dive a little deeper as editors to evaluate the merit of a claim and check the source. At the very least the lack of a published source shohld be sufficient to remove the slander in question. 47.205.180.147 (talk) 15:41, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you are suggesting that an author at the Financial Times has intentionally misstated the facts, you will need to provide counter-sources. The material you removed is sourced. —C.Fred (talk) 15:56, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say.

There is no published source citing an evidence of Lakewood’s budget in the year 2017.

The editor cited the Financial Times article. The finacial times article cited a nonexisting link as evidence of Lakewood’s budget.

https://www.joelosteen.com/Pages/Give.aspx

Therefore these allegations about Lakewood’s budget falls under original research as no reliable, published, existing source is cited to provide evidence of the claims made regarding Lakewood’s budget. 47.205.180.147 (talk) 16:07, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally—and especially in situations like this—secondary sources are preferred over the subject’s self-published sources. Given the choice of the Financial Times or the church’s own claims, FT is clearly the superior source. —C.Fred (talk) 15:57, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The church made no claims about their budget. The article I sent you from their website detailed the many forms of charity the church offers. The claim of only $1.2 million dollars being contributed towards charitable causes is wildly inaccurate. The church itself is a charity. The numerous forms of classes, groups, counseling resources & support, and social events are all charity. The cost of operating a megachurch far exceeds $1.2 million annually. They have nearly $2.5 million visitors annually. The cost of property taxes, the costs of lighting, plumbing, hvac, employing nearly 400 staff members to carry out their charitable work. Their ministry on television, outreach events, weekly services, are all charity.

That is why I was so appauled to see a claim that they spend $1.2 million of their budget on charity. It was incredibly misleading and I believe, in a court of law, would be deemed as slander. 47.205.180.147 (talk) 16:26, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And the statement in our article checks out. From the FT article: “According to a Houston Chronicle breakdown of Lakewood’s financial records, the church’s income was $89m in the year ending March 2017. More than 90 per cent of that was raised from church followers. Most of its money was spent on booking TV time, taking Nights of Hope on the road and weekly services. By contrast, Lakewood spent $1.2m — barely 1 per cent of its budget — on charitable causes.”[1] —C.Fred (talk) 16:02, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

C. Fred, is it necessary for a source to be cited regarding allegations about Lakewood’s budget?

According to you and Wikipedia’s policies, yes it is.

The Financial Times article made allegations regarding Lakewood’s budget, however, there is no existing published source to substantiate those claims.

There is no published source citing an evidence of Lakewood’s budget in the year 2017. 47.205.180.147 (talk) 16:34, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organizations/exemption-requirements-501c3-organizations#:~:text=Organizations%20described%20in%20section%20501,accordance%20with%20Code%20section%20170.

Organizations described in section 501(c)(3) are commonly referred to as charitable organizations. Organizations described in section 501(c)(3), other than testing for public safety organizations, are eligible to receive tax-deductible contributions in accordance with Code section 170.

Churches, synagogues, mosques, and other houses of worship automatically qualify as 501(c)(3) organizations under the Internal Revenue Code.

Legally, the Lakewood Church is a Charity.

Logically, I have provided evidence of the many forms of charity the church offers. I could listed 100s of different classes, support groups, free literature, charitable programs.

The cost of providing weekly service along with an abundance of support programs to nearly 2.5 million annual visitors far exceeds $1.2 million.

But for some reason, you are so hung up on an allegation made by the Financial Times article, that does not cite evidence of Lakewood’s Budget.

You are failing to properly implement Wikipedia’s policy regarding Original Research.

“Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say.”

The edit cites an article, which does not cite an published source for the allegations made.

On what basis do you have to susbtantiate your efforts to continuously revert the edit to a claim that is so ergegiously inaccurate? 47.205.180.147 (talk) 16:52, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly reverting content back to how you think it should be, despite knowing that other editors disagree. Once it is known that there is a disagreement, users are expected to collaborate with others, avoid editing disruptively, and try to reach a consensus – rather than repeatedly reverting the changes made by other users.

Important points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive behavior – regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not engage in edit warring – even if you believe that you are right.

You need to discuss the disagreement on the article’s talk page and work towards a revision that represents consensus among everyone involved. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution if discussions reach an impasse. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to engage in edit warring, you may be blocked from editing. Acroterion (talk) 16:25, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. Please stop reposting your long comments on multiple pages. You do not need to copy a thread’s entire conversation history every time you enter a discussion about it on a new page, and you should not be starting so many parallel discussions anyway (see WP:FORUMSHOP). If you want to discuss improvements to an article, please use that article’s talk page. Your behaviour is highly disruptive, and if you do not stop you will be blocked from editing. Thank you. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:00, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that the article’s talk page is important and going forward I will discuss changes on said page. Howevever, the behavior of C.Fred and Acroterion is also disruptive and I have shown multiple times to be in violation of Wikipedia’s polices. Instead of engaging in discourse with me, they ignored my responses in which I provided ample evidence to explain to them how they were violating policy and how their revisions were wrong. Acroterion has personally attacked me on multiple occasions through condescending remarks, misrepresented the situation, and they are both attempting to have a moderator implement their desired revision, without presenting any coherent explanation as to why their desired revision should be posted.

I apologize for being disruptive but I do not think it is fair that they can violate policy repeatedly and delete my replies. That is why I reposted them. I spend the time to engage in civil discourse with them, and they simply ignore and delete the replies and request a higher level admin implement their desired edit and misrepresent what I said.

It is clearly a falsehood to state that a megachurch the size of Lakewood which has over 2.5 million annual visitors, spent $1.2 million on charitable endeavors in the year 2017. It is grossly inaccurate and would be considered slander in court.

My entire point is that the revision I made was because the allegation cited no evidence in support of this smear attack, which violates Wikipedia’s “Original Research” Policy.

It seems to further I prove my point, the more I advocate on my behalf, the more I am called disruptive, while nobody is responding to the actual validity of my reasoning. 47.205.180.147 (talk) 23:12, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators’ noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia’s policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators’ noticeboard/Edit warring#User:47.205.180.147 reported by User:Acroterion (Result: ). Thank you. Acroterion (talk) 18:40, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]