Talk:Samuel Koranteng-Pipim

ARTICLE DELETION NOTICE (Previously deleted by IP)

Be advised that a topic closely connected with Pipim has been nominated for deletion. That article is Generation of Youth for Christ. YOU can vote Keep/Delete/other here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Generation of Youth for Christ. – Lionel ^(talk) 00:58, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit war on talk page over deletion notice

To IP editor: the AfD notice is proper per WP:CANVASS. And another editor has restored it. If you don't like it I recommend that you stop refactoring and stop edit warring and take it to ANI. – Lionel ^(talk) 01:01, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Where do we go from here?

I'm sure this comes as no surprise to anyone that 50.72.159.224 has been blocked as a sockpuppet of... Bello! I move that we cancel his bombardment of tendentious edit-requests and collapse them. Meanwhile I'm going to request semi-prot of the article. – Lionel ^(talk) 07:58, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree. But a lot of new sources have been uncovered on this talk page. How do we ensure that we don't lose them? I'm not entirely familiar with the whole process--shall we still have access to the information on this Talk Page? Any help will be appreciated. But I think a good starting point is to undo some of the ridiculously needless IP edits.--HopeAfrique (talk) 13:03, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Semi-prot means that only registered users can edit the article (i.e. IPs can't). I agree that we should start repairing the article of all the IP-related damage and I recommend that you Hope be WP:BOLD and get started. – Lionel ^(talk) 00:50, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Controversial Articles Should Only be Edited by Registered Editors, IMO

Controversial Articles Should Only be Edited by Registered Editors, IMO. A lot of work goes into the editing process and then someone without a track record here at Wikipedia can come in and stir up the feathers without accountability. We need a rule. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 00:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC) See WP:HUMAN — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.224.141 (talk) 00:55, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, you are human, but this article has just come out of protection and semi-protection and now that you know this whole process on this article has this history, if you are humane, as well as human, you will not delete material. Help in other ways. If you persist we will have to ask for protection again. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 01:02, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Donald that may be a little extreme as the edit-warring vandal has pointed out. However articles that are frequently vandalized by IPs are placed under semi-protection. This article probably qualifies for semi-prot due to todays IP vandalism. Requested semi-prot here. – Lionel ^(talk) 01:05, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

• Yes. I am learning. The Human section is interesting and must have a good reason behind it. It is also interesting that our unregistered editor knew the Human rule. So, this editor has intentionally not registered it seems. That is interesting, as well. Is there a good reason why a knowledgeable editor would intentionally not register and then make major deletions? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 01:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Banned users use IPs to evade their blocks. IPs are also used to vote stack at AfDs. E.g. DonaldRichardSands could vote "Keep", and then you could logout and vote a second time "Keep" as an IP. Most IPs are legitimate users. But they have an edit history where you can observe their progress in editing. New, experienced IPs IMO are suspicious. – Lionel ^(talk) 02:20, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

This Article Needs Lots of Work

Hi all, I have some other articles I prefer working on, but this article's citation consistency is a mess. We need to agree on the style and work to make all the citations fit the style. Perhaps agreeing on the same templates would be a start. Another area to address is that the tense for the whole article needs changing? now that Dr. Pipim has removed himself from active spiritual leadership. And, one more, the tone of the article needs to be made more objective. Right now, it seems that someone who really likes Dr. Pipim wrote the article. It is ok to like him, but the tone needs to change and be more objective. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 04:34, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Citation Templates for this article

In an attempt to standardize the citations in this article, let's use the following templates. (If our suggestions can be improved upon for better consistency. Let us know.):

For a website:

Template:Cite web: Let's use month day, year

New IP

I went ahead and reverted the New IP who engaged in a controversial removal of material without using the talk page. The material relates to the positions the individual Dr. Pipim had obtained.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 02:59, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The IP's are free to comment on here anytime. They seem to be decently experienced and knowledgeable for being "new". I predict that sometime in the near future they will possibly report me to ANI for something as well.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 17:43, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

If IPs are being disruptive you should request semi-protection as we did at SAU. – Lionel ^(talk) 03:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Duh. Atama protected it! – Lionel ^(talk) 03:51, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry the requests will start soon once the IP (whoever it is) gets down cutting up Southern.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 04:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Resignation

Not sure but it might be worth noting that Dr Pipim was scheduled to be re-baptized, but it was cancelled due to a new victim coming forward publicly. This has been covered by the flagship independent Adventist media publications Adventist Today and Spectrum Magazine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.33.136.93 (talk) 14:22, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Samuel Koranteng-Pipim. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120611222648/http://www.atoday.org/article/1221/news/june-headlines/pipim-sexual-abuse-victim-the-story-from-a-first-person-observer to http://www.atoday.org/article/1221/news/june-headlines/pipim-sexual-abuse-victim-the-story-from-a-first-person-observer

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:17, 24 May 2017 (UTC)