User talk:Adamkey

January 2009

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Joel Osteen. While objective prose about products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Thank you. Mike Doughney (talk) 09:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Joel Osteen, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam); and,
avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for businesses. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you. Mike Doughney (talk) 10:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Lakewood Church. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.
Please note also that Wikipedia articles may not used as a soapbox to self-publish your own views or opinions. I have reverted your inclusion of such content at Joel Osteen and Lakewood Church. JGHowes ^talk 02:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simply because I was on a soapbox does not make the reference, which if you note this account did not originally create, soapboxing. The fact that I have published a book critical of Osteen and preached outside his church is relevant to criticism of him. I am reversing your revert, please leave it alone or I will report you for revert warring. Adamkey (talk) 04:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did to Lakewood Church, you will be blocked from editing. Mike Doughney (talk) 04:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for edit warring. 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, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. JGHowes ^talk 08:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Adamkey (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have been accused of, among other things, edit warring on the Joel Osteen and Lakewood Church pages. The original entries in question were not created by me, so there is no real conflict of interest. Further, I have supplied all necessary references to prove the veracity of the link. The video linked is, in fact, me at Lakewood Church. This is further verified by documents admitted as statements of fact in federal courts in both Texas and Virginia. The filings, which I linked to, are also not of my own creation. I have fixed the problems User:MikeDoughney raised, yet he continued to unreasonably remove the information, so I continually removed his vandalism. The only reason for my continual edits is the unreasonableness of others to allow valid information to remain. If someone can show me how the information, in it's latest form violates any wikipedia policy, I will gladly stop contesting its removal.

Decline reason:

If I understand what your saying, it can be summarized with the sentence "I'm right and they're wrong, so it's not edit warring". However, being right doesn't make things any better - as long as they are good faith users who were never banned from these edits, to revert them repeatedly is edit warring. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Adamkey. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

Thanks so much, Adamkey. To help you understand further how this kind of sub-topic, when notable, has been dealt with on Wikipedia, please have a look at Oral_Roberts_University#2007_lawsuit. See all the many independent and reliable sources which are cited, along with the very neutral but straightforward language in the article text. As I recall, it wasn't added to the article until news of the lawsuit was carried by the Associated Press and other big American news outlets. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]