BrotherMeyers

I believe most of the post concerning Paul Cain's restoration process is one sided.

I'm new to Wikipedia formatting, so please have patience with me.

Paul Cain

Brother Meyers,

I am uncomfortable with some of the editing you have done on Paul Cain which seems to fly in the face of published accounts. It may be that you are close to the events in question. Of course, I may be wrong, as you may not be associated with the previous anonymous editor who made this claim. You also do not seem to be aware of the wikipedia standards of verifiability, (WP:V), or the prohibition on original research (WP:OR). It takes time to get used to these ground rules, and I suggest you have a look. How do you justify changing what Cain said on Youtube to something other than what he plainly says? This is a bit more alarming. Hyper3 (talk) 09:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

contact

Brother Meyers

You can reply to my comments by posting them underneath here, or on my page (where you asked to get in contact with me). Hyper3 (talk) 21:44, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Need Edit

However, David Andrade of RTV International Ministries, in whose care Cain had been since 2005, stated in September 1997:

I believe the last date should not be 1997 rather 2007.

further information

The page that explains why Cain was overseen by the second team (http://www.mountainofworship.com/davidandradeword.htm) has some good material that could be summarized and footnoted. Perhaps a new section could be started, called "Oversight dispute" or something like it. Hyper3 (talk) 22:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Hyper3 for the help, The whole reason I posted was to bring a balance to what really happened with Paul Cain's restoration.

As far as "Oversight dispute" I don't know if it would be a good idea. I think it may create friction between ministry groups.

Being that I know Paul Cain and what happened, I just felt like part of the facts were missing.

Thanks Again

Editing

Brother Meyers

Its important that you add your own edits and don't appear to be asking anyone else's permission. After you have added what you hope to be a good contribution, others can come along and amend what you have written, giving reasons as to why they think that their version is better. If you stick to the topic and add footnotes so that your information is verifiable, (and the source is considered appropriate) there is no reason why your edits cannot stand. It is the process of addition, refinement and debate that builds a good article. Your concern to produce a more accurate article is helpful, however you need to remember that the standard is not truth but verifiability, and the aim is to be encyclopaedic. Therefore what those close to Cain say can only be reported as a claim.

I personally have no axe to grind with Cain, and my part of the church in the UK has always been open to his ministry. I have taken the trouble to learn the rules and the etiquette of wikipedia, and have found them fair. Within the confines of these guidelines, it is possible for a believer and a Christian to make a contribution that they can be proud of. If you wish to see Cain's article improved, then there are many options available to you for improving the text and removing aspects of it that are less accurate. I suggest you start at WP:PG and begin to acquire the necessary skills. These can then be used in other articles that have similar problems. Hyper3 (talk) 18:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your insight.

I will check out all the guidelines to learn how to effectively use wikipedia. I'm a church planter with limited time so I used any possible way to get this particular job done. I do believe I have some insight that can be added to different current articles, however, because of pressure I had to figure out wikipedia in a day.

I originally thought that you were a moderator for this site so was asking for insight. Now I will read all the proper information to use wikipedia.

Thanks Again