guidelines Like it says at the top of my talk page If youre 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 As I wrote in the edit summary in response to one of your past edits youll need a WPRS from a reliable third party newspaper etc for this court papers and Youtube are insufficient  One more time court papers without comment provided by some third party like a newspaper and Youtube video are insufficient to include this material Your obvious conflict of interest use of Wikipedia articles to promote yourself and your agenda and insistence on writing about yourself in Wikipedia articles is also noted      Please see my comments at WikipediaBiographiesoflivingpersonsNoticeboardJoelOsteen Beyond this  has nudged me to think Adamkeys edits stray from so many Wikipedia polcies and guidelines I forgot to say the outcome of his edits is indeed original research along with everything else Please stop now Adamkey      WikipediaConflictofinterestNoticeboardAdamkey     Ive read and reread the WPRS which you continually cite as requiring a third party that is not a federal courts recognition of fact I find no such requirement of a newspaper The filing referenced was filed by Regent University not by me so theres your third party independently commenting on it Moreover the fact that a federal court recognized this as being fact is a second third party Please demonstrate how Regent University and the federal courtsSouthern District of Texas East District of Virginia do not meet standards of WPRS  WPCOI does not exist as I am using the talk page as requested by the policy  WPSOAP is not violated either Propaganda advocacy or recruitment of any kind commercial political religious or otherwise Of course an article can report objectively about such things as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view Even if you view what I did outside Osteens church as self promoting it is reported in an objective manner Further this account is not the original author of the update  This is not in any way WPOR either The events referenced are recorded in third party published sources and the references are not unique to Wikipedia  Again I ask that you cite the specific portions of policies you believe this post to violate as citing them generally seems to be unfruitful     Im no fan of Osteen by any stretch of the imagination but your entry doesnt seem all that encyclopedic nor is it all that notable to an entry about Osteen or his church nor does it appear to fit with the Biographies of Living Persons policy  If Wikipedia listed every crackpot not necessarily saying that you are one that protested outside a church building or wrote a book critical of a churchpastor thered be little room for anything else  It also seems youre using this article as a coatrack to promote your book  If this event is all that notable it will be widely covered by the media and have a broader impact than what currently appears to exist  I cannot stand Osteen and the prosperity gospel he espouses and I might likely agree with your book though I doubt Id ever buy it but your information is tangentially related to him and doesnt belong here    Hm I see your point Accepted Ill now yield Thanks for the civility youre a credit to Wikipedia