User talk:Onlytofind

Here are some tips to help you get started:

Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
Remember Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

P.S. One last helpful hint. To sign your posts like I did above (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).

Iglesia Ni Cristo[edit]

Hello, and Welcome. Thank you for your additions to Iglesia Ni Cristo and related articles. I think they will improve the encyclopedia. I wanted to explain a partial revert I did on one edit you made. Generally, in "Jesus Christ", "Christ" is considered a title, and is seen as expressing a point of view, while simply refering to him as "Jesus" is more neutral phrasing. (Also, it avoids a redirect to link directly to Jesus). Again, welcome, and I hope you stay. Jonathunder 01:48, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I'll try my best to help get this under control, starting with the vote. It's so sad how there's so much beef off the links section. But if you want to contact a sysop who knows about the INC article, there's Rlquall, who's already voted for 3 links. --LBMixPro ^{(Holla back!)} 07:14, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

I see your problem with Emico, but like I said before, I can't do anything about it, since I have as much power as you. Talk to Rlquall. He should handle this problem --LBMixPro ^{(Speak on it!)} 06:41, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

Apparently I am the only admin (to date) with a great interest in the INC article. As previously stated, I am neither a member nor a former member of this group, but rather someone interested in learning truthful and objective facts about it and other Christian-related groups (and other religious bodies, for that matter). I think that our problem here results from some followers, whom I will give the benefit of the doubt as being well-meaning, whose world-view is so shaped by that of their church that they see it as The One True Path to Heaven, and feel that this viewpoint is no longer a point of faith but rather a matter of fact. From this perspective, everything about the church is good and any dissent or questioning is evil. (Of course I don't know becaue I don't know you, but assume that this attitude was at least part of the reason for your being a former member). We will continue to work on this as practicable, as time permits. Of course, I do have other interests besides Wikipedia (everyone should remember that we on the admin side are getting paid exactly what you are for your contributions) and also Wikipedia interest other than the INC article. That having been said, I'll see what I can do. If you can attract the interest of admins of higher status and longer standing than I, please involve them as well. Rlquall 11:40, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rlquall, please note that Onlytofind's earlier "contributions" to the INC article is what triggered all these exchanges, and his edits still smacks of hatred against the INC. We are not out to make the INC article shaped in our own conditions (it's NPOV now more than ever, besides, not even us INC members would want that), but rather guard it from being somebody else's instrument of vengeance. Ealva 07:41, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I've already apologized for what I've done earlier, and right now, the evidence greatly stands against your claim of INC members trying to take this article towards neutrality. Would you claim that Emico's contributions are beneficial for this article? Or that Glenn Cessor is being fair when he disparages other religions on the talk page? How about you accusing me of hatred against the INC when I have contributed both positive and negative information, all provable by many sources?--Onlytofind 21:09, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The evidence also stands against you, whether you like it or not. For the sake of this article (or any INC-related article for that matter), I would suggest that you start your edits in "fair and sympathetic tone". Ealva 02:20, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Would you please also share that information with Glenn and Emico? --Onlytofind 02:22, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, sir. I sure will (I'm pretty sure they're reading this). Btw, I suggest that you make up your mind before posting, so your thoughts do not get saved to history. Ealva 06:25, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Agreed, but I'm glad I never said anything which I would regret. I hope we can work for further agreement now regarding the main INC article.--Onlytofind 21:26, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed someone added a link for Emico's Request for Comment but hasn't added a page. I quickly created an incomplete page, and I hope you can fill in the rest before the sysops cancel it out. --LBMixPro ^{(Speak on it!)} 22:19, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

I see that you contributed to the request, but you mentioned Ealva in your summary instead of Emico. I'm assuming you did this in error. --LBMixPro ^{(Speak on it!)} 07:24, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
Onlytofind, I don't know what you're thinking, but it seems you keep confusing me with someone else (the last one being e.lantaran). How would you feel if I accuse you of something you did not do? Ealva 07:20, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This needs clarifying urgently. It's clear to me, from Ealva's vastly more coherent style of argument and proper documentation of edits, that Ealva and Emico are not the same user. It looks as if Onlytofind has mentioned Ealva as another claimed example of a pro-INC editor. That may or may not be - but either way that issue doesn't belong in the Emico complaint. RayGirvan 10:33, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ealva, I sincerely apologize for dragging you into the discussion about Emico's user conduct. I was tired on the night when I wrote the summary of Emico's Wikiquette violations, and I confused you with Emico since your usernames are so close, which I apologize for. I have corrected my paragraph and affirm that Emico has committed the accusations above and that you have nothing to do with this dispute. Sincerely, --User:Onlytofind 19:15, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration Comittee[edit]

I'm very tied up at the moment, and Emico's claims are causing me lots of wikistress. Can you read over the Arbitration policy, and set up the Request for arbitration? Or encourage anyone invloved to?

Sure, I can have one up hopefully later today, or tomorrow.--Onlytofind 21:23, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't see your section in the Requests for Arbitration. I can't do anything for you until that part is finished.

Paper of interest[edit]

Onlytofind: I just found an excellent paper, The Iglesia ni Cristo and evangelical Christianity. While written by a missionary, it provides some extremely enlightening background, and loads of print references, on the conflict between INC and other religions in the Philippines. RayGirvan 23:21, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Ray. I am going to add this link to the Iglesia ni Cristo article right now, as it seems to be a well-written paper, ripe with sources and proof.--Onlytofind 23:25, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- It seemed like a good idea - but I'm despairing of the chances of a rational edit of the page. Information from non-religious sources is particularly being excluded. Elsewhere on Wikipedia, newspapers are considered valid information sources, and there are many online from the Philippines: the Manila Bulletin, Manila Times, Manila Standard and many more. RayGirvan 22:50, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Another article with a few sources and ideas: Iglesia ni Kristo - religion and politics in Philippine society From the associated links, I guess it's written from a non-religious left-wing viewpoint. RayGirvan 03:46, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's going to be as painful as pulling teeth through the anal cavity if I were to add this as a source... the INC diehards would have a field day calling it "speculation" while they feel that their own personal beliefs about the INC are fact. I like the open-minded, tolerant, liberal viewpoint of that article though, I count myself as "religious, but not religious" and I really do think organized religion is behind much of the disagreement in the world today (just check out the talk page on most religious Wiki articles) and I wish people would be more openminded about their faith and others. --Onlytofind 04:00, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting posting it - even if it were not contentious, it's not really an authoritative source, just a personal assessment by a writer of unknown credentials. But I sent it to you as it might provide inspiration for topics. RayGirvan 13:54, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Addendum: I have to say that, even though I personally utterly trust your additions, from a Wikipedia POV much of the INC detail is problematical because of the lack of external source. It's like there's some inner circle - INC and ex-INC - and stuff really shouldn't be in without confirmation from outside. RayGirvan 01:33, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, Ray... I thought if I, LBMixPro, a former INC indoctrinee, Ealva and gcessor- both current INC members would agree on the topic, it would at least be accurate enough. Now, Emico's throwing a monkey-wrench into this by his obnoxious and irrelevant edits. I am going to continue to revert and delete his edits when necessary so that he doesn't get a chance to make this article more confusing than it already is.--Onlytofind 05:11, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Iglesia ni Cristo page[edit]

This page is involved in a current arbitration case. Fred Bauder 11:23, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Don't we know it! I'm at a loss as to how it can be brought on track. RayGirvan 18:36, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Gcessor[edit]

You probably do have a case, although I think you should try every other avenue first. Grace Note 00:30, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What other avenues might there be? (Not a rhetorical question - I don't really know how the system works). RayGirvan 01:44, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee lists the possible remedies. I would like to create a survey, asking other users how to resolve the dispute between myself and Mr. Cessor without going further in the arbitration process, but I feel that it will inspire more namecalling and flames. Negotiation with him and the other INC members doesn't seem to work, since they are firm on adhering the article to their own viewpoints.--Onlytofind 05:55, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee case opening[edit]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Emico has been accepted and is now open. Please bring evidence to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Emico/Evidence. Thank you. -- sannse (talk) 19:02, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Iglesia ni Cristo[edit]

Frustrated as you are, your statement "but I knew that you would immediately fabricate another claim of bias against me" to User:gcessor is inflammatory. In such a controversial environment, please confine your comments to the article and the edits thereto rather than asserting your opinions about behaviours. You are doing a great job of building an article on such a difficult subject. I think that it will be easier for you (although still not easy) if you are very cautious about what you write on talk pages.—Theo (Talk) 28 June 2005 11:16 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, Theo. It's hard to keep a sense of civility in such a highly-charged environment, but I will try harder for the sake of Wikipedia.--Onlytofind 28 June 2005 17:38 (UTC)

Final decision[edit]

The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Emico →Raul654 20:06, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Iglesia ni Cristo[edit]

The Iglesia ni Cristo article received heavy editing today by new/unregistered users, which I noticed at WikiRage.com. The article may benefit from a good review. According to Wikipedia Page History Statistics, you are one of the top contributors to that page. If you have the time, would you please read over the article and make any necessary changes. Thanks. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 05:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Eduardo Cojuangco, Jr. for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Eduardo Cojuangco, Jr. is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eduardo Cojuangco, Jr. until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. BarkingFish 22:21, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]