Talk:Edge Church

message: With reference to the tag , my concern is really about the language used, assertions are not expressed in a neutral way.--A Y Arktos\talk 11:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. It sounds like someone giving a tribute; similar to when people are inducted into halls of fame.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 05:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree too. I took out the pov references to the man upstairs, but I'd say this should be AfD', it's of no consequences. +Fin 21:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Most of it is simply a copy of this with a few rewordings. I'd maybe support deletion. I guess we have churchcruft to worry about now too...--cj | talk 14:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The church probably warrants an entry, but this is clearly written by someone sympathetic towards what many in Adelaide would view as an extreme organisation. Impartial and factual coverage is preferable.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.212.135 (talk) 05:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

text: It's surprising that this page has no information at all on the Michael Guglielmucc scandal  This is quite a significant story and should probably be included in the page. 202.6.138.66 (talk) 05:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is he a son of the founding pastor? Was he at the time a pastor himself at the church? If so add this in if not then although it is of interest it isn't really relevant to the article on the church. Ozdaren (talk) 05:01, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV check 

message: :Image:Edge Church.jpg 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 Wikipedia articles 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 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 06:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Edge Church.jpg

message: * Edge Church Controversy
Hello, please remove "Yellow Monkey's" revision here:  which states "Protected Edge Church: vandalism" and renew this revision  which was undone by 'Ozdaren' here . 'Ozdaren' stated on the same reference just stated that the reason for undoing revision number 393958939 was due to "Vandalism. Pseudo reference to magistrate's court." Correctly, Ozdaren observed the reference was wrong - however the correct reference for the specific transcript of the court case in question which was included in revision number 393958939 is "AMC-09-4608", or the penalty number for the defendant who won the case is "AMC-09-4608/1". Please contact the Adelaide Magistrate's court on (08) 8204 2444 to confirm the validity of these references, and please allow revision number 393958939 to be restored in relation to the 'controversy' section, second paragraph, with the now updated and correct reference to court case number. Ps, I would recommend the removal of the references to the church being a 'cult' or 'cultic behaviour' but the rest of the text as sits is accurate. Sincere Regards, have a nice day. 
Truthforme (talk) 06:50, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This revision is overly negative, poorly sourced, and not directly about the subject of the article.  Wikipedia is not a tabloid that sets out to defame its subjects. ThemFromSpace 14:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from Truthforme, 29 December 2010 

message: The entry under membership states (with reference) that the Reynella church has a 'database' of 3400 people. In my view, a database of people does not suffice as evidence of membership of a specific church - as a database could well include a number of people who use, or who had at one time used the site facilities but are not associated with the church's religious movement in any way.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.174.121.226 (talk) 15:34, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point. However it is referenced from a 3rd party article (although I hazard a guess that the reporter of that piece probably just looked it up on the church's website). Ozdaren (talk) 02:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Membership 

message: Just a note that the article comes across as bias, with the statement "Guglielmucci received money from supporters", without qualification that his father (Danny) had to wrong his sins, and issue a public statement that the church would provide refunds to any persons who had made a donation 110.33.120.196 (talk) 09:27, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: And also, that all funds received, even if not requested, would be forwarded to a Christian charity 110.33.120.196 (talk) 09:27, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mike Guglielmucci