User talk:Mike Doughney

• 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 Wikipedia policies, particularly those regarding verifiability, neutral point of view and no original research, please consider carefully studying those policies before commenting here. Thanks. — Mike

Any sections older than 30 days are automatically archived by the almighty ClueBot III.

Hello, Mike Doughney, and welcome to Wikipedia! 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 Wikipedia
• 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 Wikipedia: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)

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 Wikipedia 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)

Reported me to who? For what? Teledildonix314's behavior is not the issue at the moment. You are attacking other editors, falsely accusing them of vandalism, and now you are falsely accusing me of making threats. You make personal attacks, you keep them up after being warned, you get blocked. There is no threat there, that's just the way these matters are handled here. And for your information, Teledildonix314 has been the subject of discussion here, where I've alerted other editors to the fact that your inflammatory comments and accusations haven't been and aren't helpful. I again direct you to WP:NPA and WP:AGF. Mike Doughney (talk) 07:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey. Regarding your edit [1], dont get discouraged. We have still offical mediation and arbitration options. Arbitration has real enforcement capacity. We just have to stick to WP:Dispute Resolution Phoenix of9 (talk) 21:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:NPA

Please refrain. Thanks. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 03:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Enough already - blocked 72 hours

Mike, walk away for 72 hours and consider carefully whether your attacking editors (a number of times in the past couple of days) where one of the latest is here is helping at all. Come back and attack again and I will escalate the extension of the block dramatically.--VS ^talk 07:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

February 2009

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for attempting to harass other users. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. --VS ^talk 07:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't sweat it, Mike. Our buddy, Virtual Steve, does this to everyone. Well, at least to everyone who's opposing the far-right POV pushing going on here. I'm sure that's just a coincidence. Spotfixer (talk) 05:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Your AIV report on 67.110.207.38

Thank you for your report on 67.110.207.38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). I have however declined the block for the following reason:

User has been inappropriately warned. 4im warnings are appropriate for severe vandalism and defamation only. The user has been insufficiently warned.

If you have further questions, please don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page. Cheers! -- lucasbfr ^talk 11:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Not a forum.

Don't worry, I'm done talking with him. Spotfixer (talk) 05:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Don Stewart (preacher)

Mike,

Take a look at Talk:Don Stewart (preacher), a WP:SPA that you have reverted before is trying to remove factually information and grossly misunderstands WP policy. Please have a look and offer your thoughts. BBiiis08 (talk) 00:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Prop 8

Hi Mike. In hopes of facilitating consensus on the matter of how best to refer to California Prop 8 on the Rick Warren page, I wrote up a framework of seven points that I *think* interested editors agree on, and three points that I *think* interested editors disagree on, and put it on the discussion page. I'm hoping you'll return to that page and provide your input. Thanks.... Benccc (talk) 20:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Brilliant!

Not only do you ignore the fact that the rest of the "Dominionism" article uses opinion pieces, but you completely miss the fact that the two Kurtz pieces I cited are used later on in the article! 67.135.49.198 (talk) 05:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

FYI

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rick Warren, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Phoenix of9 (talk) 01:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC) Phoenix of9 (talk) 01:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Passing on an apology

I asked for and received a sincere apology on your behalf here and I pass it on for your information.--VS ^talk 22:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Your discussion style

Mike, characterizing other editors arguments as "uncivilized impulses" is unhelpful in building a consensus. The rest of your opinion on the matter would have sufficed on it's own. Kevin (talk) 20:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rick Warren. For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 20:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

prop 8

I have no objections to the Rick Warren article, it is to your incessant revisions of me quoting "right to marry" in the actual proposition 8 article that i object to. Also, stop sending me threatining e-mails saying i will be banned from editing wikipedia. The entire gay marriage debate is whether or not gays have a right to marry, so to flat out say prop 8 took away their right to marry is inherently biased. Msss432 (talk) 23:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why you are bringing up the Rick Warren article with respect to those edits on the Prop 8 article. I am not sending you e-mails, nor have I left any messages on your talk page. I have left warnings at the talk pages of various IP addresses regarding this matter. Perhaps you forgot to log in? (That would also explain why you can't edit the article, you will have to log in first and make enough edits on other articles to be autoconfirmed since the page was semi-protected overnight.) In any case, if adding those quotation marks is particularly important to you, I suggest that rather than participating in an edit war that you open a new topic at Talk:California Proposition 8 (2008), as is suggested in the hidden comment that can be seen when editing the article. The wording and punctuation of the first few paragraphs, and particularly that part of the wording, were the product of several months' work and consensus among editors with various views on the matter and I doubt that other editors would be receptive to such changes, but feel free to suggest whatever you like. In fact, as has been discussed numerous times over the past few months (and has also been frequently restored to the first paragraph of the article), the phrase "eliminate(s) same-sex couples' right to marry" is sourced to the ballot title of the measure as it appeared on election day. Mike Doughney (talk) 02:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Your removal of link to Rick Warren Video

I only now realized that you undid a change I made to the Rick Warren page (I had added a link to a video of rick warren speaking at the TED conference, the diff of your chance is here [2]). You said that "Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor is it a vehicle for book promotion" - well yes, but the link I added offered people a chance to actually see Rick Warren talk; to get a feel for the person. There is no other such link associated with the article and I believe that access to this kind of multimedia should be one of the advantages of an online encyclopedia. I believe that the article would still profit from a link that allows people to actually watch Rick Warren. I will not pursue this matter further or add the link again - but i would be happy if you were to reconsider. Vzach (talk) 14:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Collect's AN/I

I dont think that was a good idea, give some time to the mediator. Remember this is official mediation. Phoenix of9 (talk) 17:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)