Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:44, 2 January 2009

Please post new messages at the bottom of this talk page. Please use headlines when starting new talk topics. To initiate a new conversation on this page, click on this link. You should sign your comments. You can do this automatically by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comment. If you're not already familiar with Misplaced Pages policies, particularly those regarding verifiability, neutral point of view and no original research, please consider carefully studying those policies before commenting here. Thanks. — Mike

Archives

Jun-2008 Jul-2008 Aug-2008 Sep-2008 Oct-2008 Nov-2008 Dec-2008 Jan-2009 Feb-2009 Mar-2009

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III.

Hello, Mike Doughney, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

You've more than overdue for a welcome. Thanks for all your hard work over the last few months. We realy appreciate it.

Nice to see a sense of humour too, like in your recent edit to Teen Mania Ministries "fixed redundant redundancy". Good stuff. I hate redundancy, particularly when it is not needed.

Again, welcome!  Blarneytherinosaur talk 05:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage in California and History of marriage in California

Can I ask for your input in combining these two articles, or do you think the History article stands well enough on its own? I also would like to rework the Same-sex marriage in California to better describe the timeline. What do you think? MrBell 21:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the articles best stand alone. Perhaps a sentence should be added to the summary in Same-sex marriage in California regarding Newsom's authorization of same-sex marriage licenses in 2004. Mike Doughney (talk) 20:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

How about the summary now? MrBell 23:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Rick Warren

You have mentioned on my Talk Page (Teledildonix314) that the definition of Reactionary somehow does not cover the actions and expressions of Rick Warren. But i give you the most obvious example: Californians had (temporarily) a few months of marriage equality, but then Warren worked hard to encourage the passage Prop 8. When Proposition 8 took away the marriage equality, and reverted to the Status quo ante of traditional discrimination, this appears to be an obvious demonstration of Reactionary politics. How could it possibly be described otherwise? The basic civil rights were finally upheld firmly by a high court, but the Reactionary voters decided to veto those civil rights anyway. Isn't this a textbook definition of 'Reactionary'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teledildonix314 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Why do you keep deleting my work and reverting my edits? Instead of arguing with you about vocabulary or Neutrality Of Viewpoint, i added citations and direct quotations to the article, and i verified the footnotes giving the citations from the original sources. There is no Original Research going on, and there is no Subjective issue to debate: facts are self-evident. When i added footnotes specifically citing the Atlanta Journal Constitution, the DailyKosTV report, and the reports on Democracy Now, you tried to argue that this is somehow presenting something which isn't Neutral? How can a direct citation of an actual verbatim interview _not_ be Neutral? What could be more objective than citations which allow the audience to hear the information and make their own analysis? What is inappropriate about quotations directly from reliable sources? Why do you think the Atlanta Journal Constitution and the Pacifica News Network of Democracy Now are not reliable sources? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teledildonix314 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Like it says at the top of the page here, "If you're not already familiar with Misplaced Pages policies, particularly those regarding verifiability, neutral point of view and no original research, please consider carefully studying those policies before commenting here." Mike Doughney (talk) 21:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

"disguised in plain-clothes" :-)

Thanks for the revert. Still, the undocumented claim had a certain amount of humor value (yes, I know, not the purpose of Misplaced Pages, to provide a good laugh by being ridiculous): what were the homosexuals supposed to be wearing, if they were "disguised in plain-clothes"? Had they brought their feather boas along, perhaps the church security would have been better able to identify them, or what? Ok, you aren't the one who put the text in, so you probably can't answer the question, but maybe you can appreciate the humor value, too...--Bhuck (talk) 08:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Just one more liberal Edit...

Funny how wakopedia always removes anything that proves that the gays are attacking the church, that they have become the new Hate Group or any time a christian posts the truth about God-hating Liberal gays who mock Jesus & the Bible like the Jack "The Two Bit Hack" Black. It's no wonder no one uses wakopedia anymore except liberals & gays. Funny how ever since you liberal gays took over the site, your prophets have plummeted. HAHAHAHA soon, you will be below the National Enquirer in respect.

Quick now ban me because I have a mind of my own— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.25.30.63 (talk • contribs)

Quick, you should go talk to the people who run this Christian site pushing Prop 8 and tell them how they need to stay away from that bad, bad Misplaced Pages full of liberals and gays. </sarcasm> Mike Doughney (talk) 06:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Brownsville Revival]]

Hey about the Brownsville Revival article, do you think that the new information which you removed should be included in the article if the valid complaints you have about it were fixed or not? I agree with it being removed, but should recent news from Brownsville Assembly of God be included in the article since the revival is officially over? Just wondering your viewpoints. Thanks.Ltwin (talk) 21:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Your removal of line about churches planted on Every Nation site

Hello, I see that you removed the line about new churches that were started by Every Nation in 2008. Of all the myriad lines without references in Misplaced Pages, I have to ask why you chose this one? Do you believe that this statement was false?

TKirby (talk) 00:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Rick Warren

In response to the user's claim that DailyKos and Pacifica are "reliable" sources, please note that those sources are not politically neutral. DailyKos and Pacifica are not NPOV, they are left-of-center. Willking1979 (talk) 21:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I've pulled the Daily Kos references (they were redundant and pointed to MSNBC anyway). That Pacifica isn't NPOV does not necessarily disqualify use of references to them, particularly when qualified with other sources as has been done in the article as it stands. Mike Doughney (talk) 21:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Rick Warren

Looks like this user is getting a little mad at me about what he calls "factual accuracy." He left a very angry response on my user talk page about this. Willking1979 (talk) 21:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

That noise you hear is the sound of a dictionary being thumped. We'll see if the user returns to editing the article. Mike Doughney (talk) 21:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

We'll see indeed. Looks like he deleted SineBot's comments as well. Happy New Year, Willking1979 (talk) 21:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I just reverted the user's lies he posted on my editor review page. This is getting ridiculous. Willking1979 (talk) 22:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course i'm going to edit and contribute. Your desire to suppress and obliterate my work is irrelevant. I don't have to defend any subjective remarks, i don't have to worry about whether i am insinuating any Point Of View, because i am sticking to presentation of facts which are self-evident. All i am doing is linking directly to citations which provide VIDEO AND AUDIO RECORDINGS OF THE EVIDENCE. There is nothing here to argue about 'objectivity' or 'Neutrality' because i am not creating any statements which can be in contention... instead, i am only specifically quoting the actual words from the interviews and reports which are Reliably Sourced. This is not an attack, this is not an attempt to disrupt, this is not an attempt to interject original research, this is not an effort to slip some weasel-words into a situation. Citations and quotations from the recordings and speeches mentioned by the national newspapers and by international award-winning reporters are the only 'objective' material we can possibly use here to defend or dispute any statement or declaration. Quotations and recordings are ample evidence of any facts i presented, and it isn't 'slander' or 'libel' if it's in evidence as a demonstrable truth with a vast audience who can confirm the exact words and utterances in question. Where do you find any inaccuracies in my presentations? Which facts are you disputing? Why delete my words when you can't provide a single shred of evidence in rebuttal? It's nonsense, and you don't have a leg to stand on. If you do ever find such a leg, please offer some citations and footnotes so we can all see how you arrive at your amazing stance! Until then, stop harassing and threatening me. I'm innocent of any form of vandalism, violation of policy, or inaccuracy. Until you have proof otherwise, you will just have to stop threatening. It's childish and sort of tedious.

Teledildonix314 (talk) 22:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

You have still not produced an article from a reliable source that says that Warren's actions are either "slanderous" or "reactionary." Without that, there isn't much to talk about. You, and only you, introduced those words without evidence that any reliable source has used those words to describe Warren. Without that kind of source, you are violating WP:BLP. And again, like it says at the top of the page, "If you're not already familiar with Misplaced Pages policies, particularly those regarding verifiability, neutral point of view and no original research, please consider carefully studying those policies before commenting here." Mike Doughney (talk) 23:02, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I responded to the user's nonsense on his talk page. Willking1979 (talk) 23:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I find it amusing that you keep demanding reliable citations, but then you deleted them whenever i added them to the article. The issue of slander is easily avoided by sticking to demonstrable statements of fact, and you don't have to take my word for it. You can read all of the citations and reports, you can verify the quotations yourself, you can even use some of these handy links if you're too lazy to go looking on your own and you expect me to spoonfeed the information to you:

http://news.google.com/news?q=%22rick+warren%22,+slander,+gays

http://www.truthwinsout.org/blog/rick-warrens-invocation-inclusive-of-christians/

http://letters.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/12/22/etheridge_warren/view/index6.html

How could you possibly keep insisting that the edits are lacking neutrality or failing to uphold policies on verifiability and accuracy? Which statements are you factually disputing? Which declarations are incorrect? Why do you just delete other people's sentences without offering any kind of evidence to defend your deletions? You are being a bully, and it's going to be obvious to anybody who looks at the citations and links, it's going to be obvious to any reader who looks at the History of the Article and the links in the Footnotes. Teledildonix314 (talk) 23:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I have not deleted any citations from the article except for the one regarding MLK Day (which was irrelevant and associated with the false assertion that you added) and redundant links to the Maddow show. I've responded to you at length regarding all the edits that have been made today to the article at Talk:Rick Warren. Mike Doughney (talk) 23:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I warned you about threatening me once more and now have taken action and reported you. An administrator will be investigating your comments and threats to me. You and your good pal Teledildonix314 are the only ones who have called anyone names - you by repeatedly referring to how I can't comprehend things and him calling me a "blowhard" half-a-dozen times - have your threatened him about that? Identifying someone who has had 3 different editors have to remove inappropriate posts he's made over a 3-day period is clearly someone who is guilty of vandalism. And I loved how he's started attacking you now - still think he's objective? What a joke man - the discussion page is proof that you've completely lost control of the situation and that the guy needs to be blocked immediately (which I've been saying since the beginning). Clearly I was right and you were wrong.Manutdglory (talk) 07:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Our good friend is at it agian

Looks like he finally added a source about Rick Warren...from a "progressive" news source. That is not a "reliable source" to me. Willking1979 (talk) 00:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I've added a supporting major-paper which includes reference to the controversy. Mike Doughney (talk) 00:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)