User talk:Naturtrina

Reverting Jehovah's Witnesses page, and other related pages

Please make sure that you use the talk page, and make sure that you don't remove <ref> tags that are used for valuable referencing. Do not simply revert to a previous version losing these important elements. Reverting your changes because you obviously did not look at these elements. Ans e ll 01:30, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Ans e ll 01:32, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to Jehovah's Witnesses, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This is one warning for the second set of three reverts you made to Jehovah's Witnesses, New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, Jehovah's Witnesses controversy Ans e ll 03:39, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{totallydisputed}} and blowing away people's edits

In your reverting Jehovah's Witnesses you have inadvertently destroyed people's good faith edits. The totally disputed tag comes with a requirement, that requirement being some discussion on the talk page on the article where its placed. This is evident from the line in the template, namely, "Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page."

You continue to revert, and despite pleas for some discussion, you have proffered none. What do you find disputed about the article? Where does it need cleanup? Is there a less drastic approach to your edits? No one here can read your mind, you need to let us in on your reasoning.

I'm reverting your edit for now, please be more careful when adding in content. If you want to dispute the article, that all fine and good, but you need some form of discussion about it as well. joshbuddy^talk 08:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Final Warning

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, as you did to New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Ignores pleas to discuss their claims on talk pages for related pages, as Joshbuddy says, he destroys good faith edits by reverting to a version that was current many days ago. Sockpuppets can be found by checking what links here, and cross checking against contributions. Ans e ll 12:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Dear Naturtrina. First of all a hearty welcome to Wikipedia and particularly to the pages related to Jehovah’s Witnesses. We are in desperate need of editors to help expand and improve these articles.

The best way to help is to add your name to the Participants List on the project page and have a look at the Open Tasks section for direction. There are many articles on the proposed structure that are yet to have even been started!

I have discovered that working on these pages is quite different to working on any other articles. More than with any other subject, with these articles - discussion is the cornerstone to improvement. Try not to remove paragraphs or revert edits but rather if there is an oversight or even an error in one of the articles point it out on the discussion page and help to improve the text. You will find that the editors here welcome new ideas and will help you to include relevant information into the article.

Two important policies include Verifiability and No original research. Basically, information cannot be included unless it has been published by a reliable source. I look forward to reading your contributions. Happy editing! Lucy 23:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

totally disputed tag

Why don't you want to participate in the discussion? I think it would be very helpful if you did. Take a look at Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses and please explain your rationale for the totally disputed tag. I look forward to reading your explanation. joshbuddy^talk 07:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

content disputes are not vandalizm

Calling somebody a vandal because you have a dispute on content with that person can be considered a personal attack. Agathoclea 07:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although a content dispute is not vandalism, removing content which has cited sources, as you did with this edit is. Therefore, I ask you to Please stop. If you continue to remove content from pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.. In regards to JW being a cult, please see WP:NPOV#Religion. --LBMixPro ^<Sp ^e ^ak|on|it!> 07:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]