User talk:Mike Doughney/Archive/Mar-2009

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 [1]). 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)

Please use the edit summary to explain reverts

Thank you Noisedoes1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC).