User talk:67.80.157.45

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thank you for experimenting with the page Gerald Flurry on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. Randy Johnston 00:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. Adam McCormick 04:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] March 2007

Please stop. If you continue to delete or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia, as you did to Worldwide Church of God, you will be blocked. Sylent 05:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make any unconstructive edits, please ignore this warning

You have been temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our neutral point of view policy will not be tolerated. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I want to say at the outset that I like wikipedia and rely on it for information quite frequently as even as someone possessing a history degree. I respect the Wikipedia community for what it is try to do, and it is in my interest to help Wikipedia maintain and even improve its image.

I saw no warning blocking warning, I just suddenly found that I could no longer edit the page only seconds after dueling with someone who instantly shot in to revert my delete--obviously someone with a vested interest in the sections I took out.

I deleted two sections that were filled with POV that had the strong appearance of religious bigotry. My understanding of the vandalism policy is that that deleting a section that represents a tiny fraction of the text of an article is not vandalism. Further, the vandalism policy prohibits religion bashing, which it appears your blocking of me is protecting--who then is vandalizing? If the vandalism policy is going to be used as a screen for religious slander and bigotry, you may find out that you will have more on your hands than you bargained for.

I'll add that the Wall Street Journal just recently changed their minds about giving an offshoot group of the WCG the opportunity to run an add in their paper; the reason they gave was that they had read a wikipedia article on Herbert W. Armstrong ( my guess is that it was this WCG article)that made it seem like his life was full of scandal (and no positive accomplishment.) As a someone possessing a history degree, understanding how to scrutinize sources for credibility, I have to be honest and say that I've been absolutely shocked and appalled by what I have read in recent months in some of these articles related to H. W. Armstrong. The use of source material of people who clearly have a self-serving agenda to protect their financial hijacking of the Church that Armstrong started is just one of the problematic features. Also problematic is the giving credence to allegations from common, disgruntled excommunicated members--allegations thrown out in court. Meanwhile, not a single word of the litany of projects, awards, and honors Armstrong was involved in--not a single mention. That's religious bigotry, and you need not expect to get away with it my friends.

Again, I like Wikipedia and respect what the community is trying to do, and it greatly saddens me to see this. I'm going to have to bring the religious bigotry issue up to the highest Wikipedia authorities, and to more people inside and certainly outside the community if this doesn't get resolved in a professional way.


67.80.157.45 05:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady