FriendlyBanjoAtheist (talk) 00:03, 22 August 2017 (UTC) FriendlyBanjoAtheist (talk) 00:03, 22 August 2017 (UTC)July 31, 2017, Evangelist Ravi Zacharias filed a public lawsuit against a married woman with whom he had an online "friendship" that involved him receiving nude photos. This is a matter of public record in the United States. His followers are already trying to keep this information off Wikipedia (as they have successfully done before with other unflattering material.)
- PLEASE see and discuss on the talk page. Please not that I am not a follower of the subject; the editing history of the page should satisfy you of that. MarkBernstein (talk) 00:07, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
- Agreed. I do follow the article; however, I'm no follower of Zacharias (I'm not even Christian). Wikipedia is not a news service nor a place to put original research. The lawsuit is a matter of public record and one might be able to argue for its inclusion (minus any commentary) though it would be tricky. However given the nature of the lawsuit, it will likely hit the regular press sooner or later and it might be better to wait. --Erp (talk) 03:07, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
- PLEASE see and discuss on the talk page. Please not that I am not a follower of the subject; the editing history of the page should satisfy you of that. MarkBernstein (talk) 00:07, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
I propose the following language in order to reach consensus amongst editors regarding new Ravi Zacharias information in the public record.
On July 31, 2017, Mr. Zacharias filed a federal lawsuit against a married woman with whom he had an online friendship that involved him receiving nude photos. Mr. Zacharias accused the woman and her husband of attempting to put him in a compromising position so that they could extort money from him. Mr. Zacharias's complaint maybe viewed at www.RaviWatch.com n
- You need to bring this up on the article talk page not here. However you will not be able to use www.raviwatch.com as a source. It counts as a personal website/blog (and doesn't fit the exception of being run by a recognized expert in the field in question). Add in that the website is run by you (I assume, given your handle) and it becomes a possible conflict of interest. Your best bet is to be absolutely factual and neutral and present it on the article talk page and even then little chance until the press has picked up the story that the consensus will allow it to be put in the entry. --Erp (talk) 05:54, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
August 2017 edit
Your recent editing history at Ravi Zacharias shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. BilCat (talk) 00:49, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
FriendlyBanjoAtheist, you are invited to the Teahouse! edit
|
Hi FriendlyBanjoAtheist! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 20:04, 22 August 2017 (UTC) |