User talk:121.218.65.141

This is the first and last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. Edit warring will never give you the outcome you desire. If you fail to discuss future reversions you will be blocked. —Moondyne 07:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

My only bias is in insisting that the article is fully referenced and remains encyclopaedic. You say that this is the first Potter's House Church ever sent out. I don't even know what "sent out" means and its not asserted in the article. The link makes no mention of Potters House that I can see. In that context, why should it stay? Update the article with neutral and encyclopaedic prose and link to it as a citation and it'll be fine. A citation needs to be from an independent and reliable secondary source. Do you get what I'm saying? And how about editing under your registered name? —Moondyne 02:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:ALSO, internal links already in the article do not need to be repeated in the see also section. External links which are nothing more that fansites do not belong in a serious encyclopeadia. You are now reverting without discussion which is vandalism. Future reverts may result in your editing rights being revoked. —Moondyne 14:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

This account has been temporarily blocked because it is suspected to be a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not. IIf you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

The background and reasons for this block are explained at User talk:Sapienz —Moondyne 00:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

---