User talk:75.40.99.152

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Joel Osteen, you will be blocked from editing. --Mhking (talk) 01:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Joel Osteen. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. -Cow Taurog (talk) 02:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Joel Osteen, you will be blocked from editing. --Mhking (talk) 02:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Osteen links

Please let me know when and where to discuss our biases, yours and mine.

You raised an issue regarding my reversion of your edits; you removed the template requesting posters not to add additional links; you did not bring this matter up for discussion on the talk page until your edits were reverted, and finally, you did not bring your additional concerns to my attention. I'm more than happy to discuss those things, but blanket charges of abuse are not only not warranted, they are not appreciated. If you feel that your link needs to be included, feel free to discuss that; however, do not remove the template regarding additional links on the page. --Mhking (talk) 02:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, if you have a criticism of Osteen, a more constructive way of dealing with that would be to write a non-biased criticism section of the article itself, as opposed to cluttering the page with additional links. --Mhking (talk) 03:01, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


Additionally, your accusations of "bias" on my part are both unfounded and not germane to the conversation. The number of links has been reduced due to the significant number of links that had been added to the article. As I said, you are more than welcome to add an unbiased criticism section to the article. However, it is one that will have to have a basis in empirical sources, and not opinion. It sounds like the Larry King interview would be a good place to start. --Mhking (talk) 03:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Where in wikipedia is there a requirement to keep the external links of any article to TWO? Most importanly, to have someone enforce links to ONLY TWO website controlled by paid employees of subject matter? That is called BIAS, my frend... Finally, how in the world would the trancscript of Joel's interview at Larry King be bias? He spoke in his own words. Again, you are applying your bias into a public forum. Please stop. Reverting editing that is NOT vandalism is also vanadalism in itself, you know better. If you want to go into an editor war, that OK with me all the way to arbitraton.