User talk:JeffNix

Image copyright problem with Image:Earl Paulk File Photo.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Earl Paulk File Photo.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

To Wiki Editor regarding this photo, from user Jeff Nix Copyright information is now added to the image summary page although the "talk" page indicates it is missing. It is indicated as being complete in the image summary.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 06:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Bishop Earl Paulk.jpg.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Bishop Earl Paulk.jpg.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 03:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Earl Paulk

I have reverted a whole slew of deletions that you have made, with a dubious explanation. Let's get this straight: if you want to delete whole chunks of sourced information, you'd better get consensus on the talk page first. Otherwise, you'll find a whole lot of irate users, who have put a lot of time and effort into the article, who are not amused by such antics. David Cannon (talk) 09:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I notice that you have contributed nothing to Wikipedia, apart from (many) deletions and (few) additions to this article. That makes me wonder whether you have some ulterior motive for the kind of edits you have made here. I'm not saying you have, but I would counsel you to avoid behaviour that might arouse suspicions. It bears repeating that mass deletions without consensus DO send that kind of message, even if it's not what you intend. David Cannon (talk) 09:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Bishop EarlPaulk.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Bishop EarlPaulk.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Earl Paulk

Talk:Earl Paulk - just click the link and find the talk page. By all means bring the topic up. David Cannon (talk) 10:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Statement made on Talk:Earl Paulk

You left this comment referring to the edits I made:

'WAVY 10 Fan – “there is a good chance you will be hard pressed to find much on Paulk that doesn't revolve around these varied sexual misdeeds” JeffNix - Not to criticize, rather to state the intuitively obvious, YES, indeed, much of what one finds as current events in the modern media about Earl Paulk does in fact revolve around “these varied sexual misdeeds”… as written and sensationalized. Prior to the emergence of pile on styled accusation, the press about Earl Paulk was all solid, commendable, and exemplary of a lifetime of dedicated service as a man of the cloth. What is now being rpesented as original press is nothing more than regurgitated shock factor tabloid trouncing. I have no problem dealing with the factual aspects of this BLP but adding accusation and potentially libelous material attempts to legitimize the allegations which do nothing but exacerbate the frailty of the human condition; this cannot possibly further the Wikipedia objectives of fair treatment in the spirit of neutrality. What it does proffer is furtherance of the “court of public opinion”.

As the creator of the article, I did mention the fact that, among other things, Paulk did a lot to encourage integration in his church (a pretty bold move in the South during the early-1960s) as well as the fact Bush 41 named the church one of his 1000 Points of Light during his administration. As it is though, he is most notable for all these sex scandals. Doing what you seem to imply would be like someone editing the Bill Clinton page and leaving out the varied sex scandals over the years. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 20:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)