User talk:Mike Doughney/Archive/Jun-2008

Mike Bickle wiki page

Mike,

Need your wisdom on the cites on the Bickle page. Check the discussion on that page. I'm thinking that some ofthe cite are needed as secondary sources, because every assertion, no matter how benign, seems to be questioned. For instance that he was formerly pastor of KCF (footnote 6). Join the fray.

Heartofdavid (talk) 15:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Scarlet A.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Scarlet A.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 14:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Dmizzley

Beware, you've just added a warning on his user page ;) -- lucasbfr ^talk 18:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Dominionism

Regarding this edit, I can't make any sense of your edit summary. You said "How 'bout not trashing the article, hiding the references, and instead, taking your concerns to the talk page?" Did you bother to read the talk page? Did you miss my explanation, and that of several other editors? Do you reject WP:SYNTH and WP:NOR? If so, on what grounds?

Since you chose to re-insert deceptive references, how about explaining your reasoning on the talk page? Guettarda 18:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[1] I posted four explanations to the talk page up to that point (and a fifth after). User:FeloniousMonk, who originally pointed out the WP:SYNTH problem posted five times. What part of that do you consider 'not "your concerns to the talk page"? Guettarda 18:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Citing Kenneth Haggin

I did Cite, I said according to recent graduates, and considering I know several I could have quoted the whol lot of them. Also there were several other sentences that said according to his followers, or as common knowledge among his followers. Why is it ok for people to say in a life shrowded with controversy without a citation right after that. According to who? Am I allowed to go through and mark all fo the attacks that haven't been cited? I have also read the very books that were being grossly taken out of context, and have sat under the sermons that were being misquoted, I actually listened to the tape to double check...there is no way to link to that though. In addition, I cited the scripture that he always quoted, which is a citation, since the bible is a tangible book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Impact2d (talk • contribs) 12:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with the five pillars of Wikipedia along with the Wikipedia policies on citing reliable sources and original research before making further contributions to Wikipedia. Everything you are calling a "cite" qualifies as original research and is therefore not appropriate in contributions to Wikipedia. Thank you. Mike Doughney (talk) 12:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Optruth flyer back.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Optruth flyer back.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 18:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Teen-mania-recreate-08.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Teen-mania-recreate-08.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 03:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

You're nothing but an internet bully

Hi, I'm the person you've been abusing over editing the John Hagee page. I think this is another example of what a joke wikipedia is. I've gone to John Hagee's church since 1998 & never heard anything about anti-catholicism until this whole John McCain thing. I came on here to see if there was any information about it & what do I find? A SLEW of QUOTES people have to say about him. Nevermind the simple fact that Pastor Hagee refuted these claims on his CUFI website--I've tried to add that 3 times now & have been blocked by you--an online internet bully. This is an attack article & is completly one sided. You disgust me!

I love how instead of addressing the issue you ignore it & then say that I'm attacking. Typical internet bully. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.191.5.154 (talk) 14:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

User 72.191.5.154

It appears that anonymous user 72.191.5.154 is continuing to make unproductive edits to the John Hagee article even after your warnings on his or her talk page. He or she recently deleted unflattering biographical material that I'd added; he or she said that the statements were not backed up by the cited source, whereas they clearly are. I have reverted the material, added a second source, and explained my edit on the article's talk page, here. I have also brought this to the attention of 72.191.5.154 on his or her talk page, where I learned that this editor has had other recent disputes. I bring this matter to your attention for further review. Jacob1207 (talk) 19:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

JCScontrols

Why did you undo our addition of a link, and report us to be blocked? We were just trying to add a link to the list of 4 other links at the end of the article. Please explain what we did wrong. Thank you. JCScontrols (talk) 15:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand why you removed the link I added to the page, and do not have a problem with you doing so. However my username is not a clear violation as you stated. If you would read the rule that you reported me for you would see that you were in fact incorrect.

Company/group names

Use of Wikipedia for promotion of a company or group is not permitted, and accounts that do this will be blocked. Use of a company or group name as a username is not explicitly prohibited, but it is not recommended, and depending on the circumstances may be seen as a problem. Similarly, editing with a possible conflict of interest – for example, editing an article about your employer – is not disallowed, but anyone wishing to do so is advised to first accumulate some editing experience in unrelated areas.

Please refrain from hasty reports without first confirming that what your are reporting and blocking is truly an infraction. JCScontrols (talk) 15:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The magic woods awards

Hi,

I notice this article was deleted. The reason it was created, is that lots of other Wikipedia articles reference the awards, especially in regard to a persons achievments. I thought it would be useful for the articles mentioning that someone has won a Magic Woods Award to link to an article describing what the awards are - in a similer fashion that a movie stars page links to 'The Oscars' when mentioning that a movie star has won that. Any thoughts? Magic007 (talk) 11:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Did you search google for 'The Magic Woods Awards' ? I just did and got lots of results. In order to explain what The Magic Woods Awards are, in respect of their being mentioned on several of the award recepients articles, maybe I should explain what the awards are on the article of the award winner. This seems the only way to allow wikipedia readers to understand the article in full, but it also seems like it would hijack the original articles about the person, not the awards. 86.157.27.143 (talk) 18:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Every Nation

Unfortunately, that IP did raise a partially valid point. For privacy reasons, Form 990s can't be used as sources unless a secondary source has commented on them. Blueboy96 21:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia meetup

As someone who may live or work near Washington D.C., you may be interested - if you've not heard already - about the meetup scheduled for Saturday, May 17th, at Union Station. For details, please see Wikipedia:Meetup/DC 4.

You are receiving this automated message because your userpage appears in Category:Wikipedians in Maryland. Melon‑Bot (STOP!) 18:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Ron Luce

Mike, as someone who defiantly has different beliefs then you do, I really appreciate your level headness and fair treatment of most Christian articles. I know that you get more than your fair share of hate speech and antagonism from other editors for what it really good, sound editing and policy adhearance. While many of the younger editors are very impassioned about their beliefs, which can be a good thing, they end up very misguided in their attempts to add original research to wikipedia. Again, thanks for being who you are... Tiggerjay (talk) 06:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The magic woods awards notability

Google 'The Magic Woods Awards' Magic007 (talk) 18:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)