User talk:70.108.49.31

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!
Welcome!

Hello, 70.108.49.31, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to leave me a message.

Contents

[edit] Amazing Facts 02:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Please do not add unhelpful and unconstructive information to Wikipedia, as you did to Amazing Facts. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.--Maniwar (talk) 02:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I was responding to vandalism. The article was changed which deleted some of the previous content. What I added was helpful and true. In fact the previous article had been rather carefully done and I assume an adventist didn't like it and changed it. If your pov is offended that it to bad, but amazing facts does target Catholicism and that should be noted. I will make a minimalist notation of that fact. (unsigned by 70.108.49.31)

[edit] Please sign your post

when you post on people's talk pages, please sign your posts! --Maniwar (talk) 02:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Amazing Facts

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. One or more of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Amazing Facts, have been considered unhelpful or unconstructive and have been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.. Please cite sources, per wikipedia policy and do not continue to re-add reverted information to an article. Please read the new comers guide on how to use wikipedia. --Maniwar (talk) 02:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Personal Attack [1]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, we remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --Maniwar (talk) 13:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Personal Attacks [2]

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Maniwar (talk) 14:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Signature

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button Image:Wikisigbutton.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --Maniwar (talk) 14:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

You already are planning to block me anyway aren't you? I already see it coming.70.108.49.31 20:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)Nemesis

You will only be blocked if you continue to ignore Wikipedia policies. There are policies in place and I encourage you to be bold and edit whatever and however you want, so long as you learn wikipedia policies. Take the tour and learn how to contribute. I see no need to have you blocked if you're willing to work within the guidelines. There is no grand conspiracy to block you, however, you must abide by the policies and learn the rules. I would also suggest, and other editors will feel you have more value, that you create a user name and edit under it. Wikipedia does not require it, but they do highly encourage and suggest it. Anyway, learn wikipedia guidelines and happy editing. --Maniwar (talk) 23:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit 17:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Amazing Facts, you will be blocked from editing. --Maniwar (talk) 17:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Personal Attacks

I am not issuing a warning for this attack here. However, the above is the final warning and next time you will be reported. --Maniwar (talk) 17:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] copied from Talk:Amazing Facts

Repeated from Talk:Amazing Facts

Let it be noted that I strongly suspect that User:70.108.49.31, User:136.242.228.218, and user:136.242.180.140 is the same person. Now, having said that I will the issues above again, and for the final time.

  1. You are assuming just because a person reverts you they are an SDA, and so you have been calling them names. You have been given a warning at your talk page(s), and that is the final warning. So, if anyone of the above three IP's name call, the IP's at the Catholic University of America will be reported and most likely blocked/banned. That, as you obviously can see, is not the preference and therefore you are again being asked to stop, cease, and desist all personal attacks.
  2. Your addition has for the 100th time (obviously this number is to express a point and to add emphasis to this point) has been reverted. This addition has been on discussion Since February 2006 and several editors have reverted it. The reasons as pointed out above (several times), is because you are adding loaded, unsubstantiated, and unsourced sentences to the article. Adding why you believe it to be true on the talk page is not adding a source. You have been given links here at this talk page, and at all three of your IP talk pages to go and learn how Wikipedia wants you to source. Since you are unwilling to learn how to edit, it is obvious that you have no interest in contributing positively to wikipedia. I again, encourage you to go and learn how to contribute to articles, how to source, and how to edit in Wikipedia.
  3. Your ludicrous accusation that I made a contribution to the article without any sources, is exactly that. Were you to take time and learn wikipedia, you would have quickly seen that, the last contribution I made, I inserted three sources to back it up. This is why you need to learn how to contribute to wikipedia; a) so you can do it yourself, and b) so you don't baselessly (is that a word?) and wrongly accuse someone for doing exactly what you say they didn't do.
  4. In wikipedia, sometimes editors have been asked to step back from an article because of conflict of interest, and I feel your case is a very good example to that. As pointed out above, you don't want to learn wikipedia, yet you want to vandalize articles. Since you have strong distaste for this entity, you will not contribute anything to improve it, so it may be to your best interest to avoid this article altogether. If not, you may, unfortunately, find yourself from being able to contribute to wikipedia.

I trust your questions have been addressed, and if not, please feel free to ask, without attacking or without inserting a sentence that will get you blocked. Any editor who wishes to add to this is more than welcomed and encouraged to. Cheers! --Maniwar (talk) 17:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I did NOT vandalize the article. I DID put the source and the link. Did you bother to read it? You have given no reason as to why you have vandalized the article by continuing to revert a sourced statement. Why are you so interested? What are your reasons for reverting it? Do you have contrary evidence that you can offer? Also you have made an unsubstantiated claim that I am actually 3 people. Evidence for that please? You complain I wrongly accuse you and yet you do the same thing to me. I really want to know why you are doing this. If you are not and sda then say so. Also why is this not in mediation as John requested?70.108.49.31 22:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)Nemesis

My source quoted AF. They don't mind being considered anti-Catholic. They are open about it. I quoted AF as a source above and even that isn't enough for you. No source will be good enough for you no matter what. You have not answered about whether you are an sda. I SUSPECT you are. Gee, how useful to "suspect" someone and then act as if all is proven. Basically you are defending your bias and pov. You are using wikipedia as a shield to ensure that nothing you don't like gets in an sda article. Am I wrong? Do I suspect you wrongly? I bet not, we both know I am right. This is why wikipedia is not accepted as a valid source. People know this kind of thing goes on. Here is what I am going to do. I am going to ask AF if they oppose the Catholic Church. I will then post their reply if any. If they say yes then I will post it in the article. How can you argue with AF if they in fact agree with me? Oh I bet you will though won't you? But let's try it and see. You don't want to post on this argument because you know you are wrong and are unwilling to set aside your pov. I am not the problem here. Posting positively means posting the whole truth, even if that makes you unhappy and contradicts your pov. Be honest, we both know what you are doing and why you are doing it. Doesn't it make you the least bit uncomfortable? Would the sda church approve?70.108.49.31 04:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)Nemesis