Talk:The Meeting House

message: The article doesn't have the objective tone expected of a Wikipedia article. Jrichardn 21:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [Untitled]

message: In response to that previous comment, two things.
#1-Most Wikipedia articles are not, get used to it. To police every single article is impossible.
#2-The reason is that this article in not even a paraphrase of the Brethren in Christ website or The Meeting House website, it's virtually just a mix and match. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mattawa (talk • contribs) 17:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response to Previous Comment 

message: So what, all articles are not objective, and not policed, therefore they should never be policed? What are you just trying to get by the rules through a technicality or something? Talk about breaking the spirit of the law. Are you a Christian?--Tomwchow 04:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response to the response 

message: To the previous response I say this, because the high number of articles you have to 'police' the important ones. This (article) is not important enough, it is incredibly difficult to police everything, It's nearly impossible. Stick to the important ones, social sciences, science, psychology, history, literature and current events. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mattawa (talk • contribs) 16:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response to the Response on my response 

message: This is a poorly written article.  It ought to be tagged as an advertisment.  To the author-editors who are obviously members of the organization, You have your own website to promote your Organization.  Wikipedia isn't it!  As for the "prayed to god" part, I am going to research Wikipedias policy on this, it is not the first time i have come across these terms in religious articles, but it will likely fall into the scope of WP:NPOV  I will be, for now on, taking an active role in helping develop this page and look forward to working with Y'all on it.
Tallrichard2 10:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Response to the debate

message: Since nobody else visited this page in over a month, i went ahead and edited the page.  if you would like to make further changes, please do, but only if you understand The 5 pillars of Wikipedia.  The former article resembled an advertisment, was copied from various sources from the net(someGNU, some not).  And did not have an encyclopedic tone.  please do not revert my edits, but make edits within the Wikipedia Guidelines.  also, please remember that wikipedia is about Verifiability, so if you can't provide sources, then please don't include it in the article.ThanksTallrichard2 23:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Major Rewrite

message: :Image:BruxyCavey.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 15:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:BruxyCavey.gif

message: @ohnoitsjamie Re: your removal of first-party source as unreliable, WP:RS states that “Self-published … sources may be used as sources of information about themselves” - would this not apply in this case?   Regardless, I will add third-party sources to be safe dizzyflamingo (talk) 13:50, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Third-party are always preferable. Note that 5 criteria for self-published in WP:SELFSOURCE.  Some of those are questionable in this case, hence the need for third-party. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:12, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @Ohnoitsjamie understood, thanks dizzyflamingo (talk) 18:07, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliable Sources