User talk:Mike Doughney/Archive/Feb-2009

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)