Talk:Endtime Ministries

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good Day,

My name is Dave Novick and I am the webmaster for Endtime Ministries, and hold the copyright to this Endtime web content.

I just created this page and saw it taken down as a copyright infringement from Daystar. I'm not sure why.

Thanks, Dave

P.S. I can be reached at webmaster@endtime.com unsigned edit by 24.21.229.46 (talk · contribs)

  • I have sent a message to the above noted address seeking confirmation that this content has been placed into the public domain. --Durin 02:21, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I received an e-mail from Dave Novick <dnovick@endtime.com> with the following content:
This content was posted by me, who am an employee of Endtime Ministries. I am fine with this content being on Wikipedia. However, I would not be ok with the logo being used by other people (i.e. who take it from Endtime.com or wikipedia.org). Does this mean that I should pull the logo down?
BTW, somebody else had put this content on copyright infringement alert...and I notified them as well.
Thanks,
Dave Novick

Whoever has put the copyright violation on please read the above. As stated I hold the copyright to this material, Daystar doesn't. Please restore the page to it's former content If you have other questions my e-mail is above

I am the editor of this page and I am just stating the mission of the ministry. If you feel something is not nuetral please state what is not nuetral, and I will decide if it will be removed. Also, thanks for your opinion.

I don't know if anyone is watching this, but this page definetely needs to be edited for NPOV. --Brasswatchman 00:00, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
Agreed. Dave Novick misunderstands how Wikipedia works. Currently the article is merely a Wikified copy of the text here. Whether it's POV or not, it certainly ain't encyclopedic. If he expects or demands that it stay in that form, no deal: posting to Wikipedia requires you buy into If you don't want your writing to be edited and redistributed by others, please don't submit it. And also assertions of ownership of articles don't cut much ice here. So the choices are: a) he accepts the version here can be edited freely; or b) he doesn't, and it's scrapped entirely and rewritten by others from scratch. Tearlach 13:00, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a pulpit.Ben Her 10:41, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Nor an annexe of the Endtime Ministries website. Cleaned up. The Irvin Baxter Jr. page needs cleanup for promotional tone also: "Understanding the Endtime is a ten-lesson course, designed for the lay-person featuring 51 fully laminated charts depicting the images of Daniel and Revelation in stunning 4-color and an accompanying instruction manual". Tearlach 11:58, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Notable?

This article doesn't seem to be encyclopedic. How is "Endtime Ministries" notable? Seems like a wholly unremarkable evangelical ministry. Unless notability is established quickly, this article will be nominated for deletion. Cleduc 03:40, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] No issue with editing - but who defines notable and unremarkable?

Dave Novick here. Actually, I do understand how Wikipedia works, and haven't ever taken issue with anybody editing the content. My only objection was when it was put on Copyright violation notice - for content that was submitted by and is owned by Endtime. Truthfully, I don't have much of an issue with the edits that have been done - though I don't see much in the original content that was a breach of the NPOV policy. Nevertheless, I welcome any edits that bring it more into conformance with Wikipedia's policies.

As to notability: in whose eyes, in whose judgment? What specific objective criteria defines "notability"? I think I could present cogent, data based arguments that Endtime Ministries has made a greater contribution and impact to the lives of many individuals (by God's help) than the yo-yo (toy and rap star) or the hula hoop - two entries that I doubt anybody would nominate for deletion from Wikipedia. I guess I find the words "notability" and "unremarkable" to be strange juxtapositions with discussions of NPOV.


Is the organization well-known enough to merit a page, or is the article just advertizing? 'Cause if you're going down the 'who says what is objective?' route, then I could put up an article about my dog and use the same defence.


I know of Endtime Ministries from over the other side of the world. I'd say the organisation is pretty notable. Gazzatude —Preceding comment was added at 11:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)