User talk:Mike Doughney/Archive/Dec-2008
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
How is citing Hugh Heweitt's commenbts a violation of neutrality ...
... when Mel White's comments are allowed to stand elsewhere, saying Dr. Dobson wants to exterminate gays?
Issuing a brand new user a level 3 NPOV warning right off the bat was probably excessive. I've replaced it with a level 1 warning. Please make sure to not bite the newcomers. If they really are a returning vandal, we'll block them for repeated issues soon enough. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 21:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
"disguised in plain-clothes" :-)
Thanks for the revert. Still, the undocumented claim had a certain amount of humor value (yes, I know, not the purpose of Wikipedia, to provide a good laugh by being ridiculous): what were the homosexuals supposed to be wearing, if they were "disguised in plain-clothes"? Had they brought their feather boas along, perhaps the church security would have been better able to identify them, or what? Ok, you aren't the one who put the text in, so you probably can't answer the question, but maybe you can appreciate the humor value, too...--Bhuck (talk) 08:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Just one more liberal Edit...
Funny how wakopedia always removes anything that proves that the gays are attacking the church, that they have become the new Hate Group or any time a christian posts the truth about God-hating Liberal gays who mock Jesus & the Bible like the Jack "The Two Bit Hack" Black. It's no wonder no one uses wakopedia anymore except liberals & gays. Funny how ever since you liberal gays took over the site, your prophets have plummeted. HAHAHAHA soon, you will be below the National Enquirer in respect.
Quick now ban me because I have a mind of my own—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.25.30.63 (talk • contribs)
- Quick, you should go talk to the people who run this Christian site pushing Prop 8 and tell them how they need to stay away from that bad, bad Wikipedia full of liberals and gays. </sarcasm> Mike Doughney (talk) 06:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Brownsville Revival]]
Hey about the Brownsville Revival article, do you think that the new information which you removed should be included in the article if the valid complaints you have about it were fixed or not? I agree with it being removed, but should recent news from Brownsville Assembly of God be included in the article since the revival is officially over? Just wondering your viewpoints. Thanks.Ltwin (talk) 21:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Your removal of line about churches planted on Every Nation site
Hello, I see that you removed the line about new churches that were started by Every Nation in 2008. Of all the myriad lines without references in Wikipedia, I have to ask why you chose this one? Do you believe that this statement was false?