User talk:Jimbo8less1

It seems clear to me that the editors of The Shack wicki are anything but objective in their treatment of the book, It also appears that they will not broach any opposition to the book which grows daily. They glibly regurgitate the spin from its authors that the book is not about theology, but one of the the authors, Paul Young finally admitted it in an interview which is shown on My Space and You tube.

It is very much a book of theology dressed in a fictional story. The writers don't mind when its called an allegory or compared with Pilgrims Progress.If any credibility is to be given to the notion that the editors are objective, some space should be allowed to oppositional voices. BTW Wayne Jacobson (a co-writer of the book) does not adequately deal with oppositional reaction to the book. Nor does Randal Rauser who is an apologist for the book.````

Thank you for your comments. Note that there *is* a very clear paragraph on the reception of the book, including a 'is also the object of ongoing criticism'. Any serious references about 'opposition...which grows daily' from reputable sources (not blogs) are welcomed.

I can't see where the Wikipedia article 'glibly regurgitate(s) ... that the book is not about theology'. Where does it say that in the article?

I hope you are not the previously blocked user returning to insert disruptive edits. That would be viewed negatively.

peterl (talk) 22:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, It is not the article that states that it's not a theological treatise, but several editors have stated that in backroom comments. A big hooha is being made about an external reference to a web-site with oppositional articles to the theological tenets proponed in The Shack.Neither the Website nor the book "Beware the Shack" is abusive. It is supported by top theologians. The first article on the Website is co-written by Norman Geisler, "a leading apologist" cited in your article.There is most certainly independent third party support for both the Website and the book. Just google either "Beware the Shack" or "John k Langemann" I am the publisher of the book. (talkJimbo8less1 (talk) 09:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I have been blocked again, this time for three months for allegedly spamming/advertising. In the 5 pillars of Wiki's operation protocols and constitution, It states that as a collective it is neutral in its views and that it allows, indeed encourages, oppositional views.

Each one of the three external links sanctioned by editors of ""The Shack page advertise books and materials promoting "The Shack". When I insert an external link to an oppositional website which contains articles antithetical to the views expressed in "The Shack" it gets blocked and accused of spamming/advertising. On what distinctive is this decision arrived at? If the link took readers directly to the page which contains the articles would it make any difference?

The unblocking procedure is also worse than the most complex maze to travail if one is not ofe with how Wiki works. There are all sorts of links taking one everywhere excepting where one needs to be to appeal a block. Surely the process can be greatly simplified.Jimbo8less1 (talk) 11:12, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality is indeed important, and I and everybody who edits The Shack constructively works to keep it objective. (I was the first person to add any critical material to the article, which was indeed one-sided before I started trying to fix it. In case you're wondering, I'm also a Christian who didn't like The Shack. So there's no need to feel like the wikipedia establishment is trying to shut you out, or prop up Young et al.)

The relevant policy that you are violating is the external links policy WP:EL and specifically the linkspamming policy at WP:LINKSPAM. This has been discussed already at Talk:The Shack. In brief, "Beware the Shack" is just some book written by some guy. The author is not a notable figure (unlike Geisler), the book has not had notable (any?) influence. (Correct me if I'm wrong- can you cite something like a newspaper or magazine article which discusses BTS? A major blog/podcast?) There is no reason why anybody should consider Langemann's opinions worthy of note. The three existing external links are all relevant official sites. Calling your site the "The Official Anti-The Shack Website" is frankly ridiculous. It's the official website for some book written by some guy.

Since you are the publisher for the book, you additionally should consider the conflict of interest policy at WP:COI. Honestly this is going to make it harder for people to take you seriously, even if you have only good intentions. If you really want to change some bias that you perceive in the article, perhaps you should try inserting criticisms other than those related to your own commercial interests. If "Beware the Shack" ever becomes really successful, there are plenty of other people who will add it into the article. Staecker (talk) 16:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Well summarised Staecker. Thanks. Jimbo8less1 note: "do you understand that what you did was inappropriate for this site?". peterl (talk) 11:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

By the way, sometimes google search is better than wikipedia's: http://www.google.com/search?q=wikipedia+appeal+block Staecker (talk) 16:58, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

For Peterl, I found a section where Staeker said: "Well, The Shack is not the work of a theologian. It is meant to be inspirational Christian fiction" viz your question about where does anyone say that The Shack is not a theological work.

I take your various points, but none of you have addressed the notion of a direct link to the articles page, where the first article is co-written by a 'notable' by your corporate standards. Well, maybe Langemann will be notable one day.We'll remember these comments. So that would be how many book sales and how many blogs to clear the bar?Jimbo8less1 (talk) 18:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Geisler's article is already linked from our page. It's reference 13. The material at bewaretheshack.com is just a re-printing (without permission?) of the page that we've already linked. So no, a direct link to bewaretheshack.com/article.html would not improve our page. It might be useful if there weren't another source for the Geisler article, but a link to Geisler's own site is much preferable.

As for whether the Shack is a work of theology, my comments on that point were at Talk:The Shack, which is where I and others register our opinions about the stuff that goes in the actual page. The article itself (The Shack) doesn't contain my own opinion on that issue. Staecker (talk) 20:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

For your interest, the article is used with permission from the authors Norman Geisler and Bill Roach.Langemann is friends with both writers and is going to get a purpose written article for that page within the next thirty days or so.Jimbo8less1 (talk) 19:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)