User talk:Automyte

JW History article

Can you please indicate your reasons why you believe that an unofficial antiJW website, which appears to be a poor quality personal webpage, is especially relevant to the article about the history of the JW religion?--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on History of Jehovah's Witnesses. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. LTSally (talk) 12:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate links

Please desist from adding inappropriate links to articles. The links you are adding are not directly relevant to the scopes of articles you are adding them to. If you want to advertise sites that attack the doctrines of JWs, please go to a forum, as this is not the purpose of Wikipedia. If you actually believe the links you are adding are important to Wikipedia articles, discuss at the articles' talk pages.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Watchtower

Do not add your own personal opinions to articles. Information added to Wikipedia articles should cite reliable sources.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate content

It appears that you still do not understand various policies of Wikipedia, or its purpose in general. Please do not add unsourced material, or links to websites that are plainly critical. Unless a controversy is specifically the focus of an article, there is no reason to link to websites that are overtly anti-JW. Please see WP:FORUM & WP:SOAP, WP:SOURCE, WP:NPOV for starters. Please do not e-mail me, as I will not respond to you by e-mail. If you have questions or comments about improving articles, address them to the Talk page of the relevant article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you want to be regarded as a vandal, and be blocked from editing in the near future, you need to stop adding personal opinins and unacceptable external links to JW articles. Possibly like you, I was a member of the religion and there is much I now dislike about the religion. Wikipedia is valuable for presenting facts about the religion that Watch Tower publications won't publish, but please read and respect the rules and policies that help ensure articles have a measure of quality and balance. This is not a place to post diatribes. It's a pointless exercise to continue to add links and content that conflict with the rules, because the number of editors watching the JW pages is high enough to ensure they'll be promptly removed. Your contributions will always be welcome if you're happy to work with others. Thanks. LTSally (talk) 02:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Automyte, regarding your two attempts to elicit a response from me by e-mail via Wikipedia's e-mail option:

"If you think www.watchtowerlies.com is a poor quality site, I'm gonna ad freeminds.org."
"Ok then, I'm adding a more appropriate page. http://www.watchtowerlies.com/watchtowerlies_015.htm"

Neither of these sites meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources, and the 'freeminds' website has been specifically addressed before as not providing sources for its claims.

Do not attempt to contact me by e-mail.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed links

Obviously the 'content' you would like to add is not accepted by other editors. If you will not even discuss and edit according to consensus, then your disruptive behaviour will be reported, which may result in you being blocked from editing.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reported for edit warring

You persist in disruptive editing, so I have reported you at WP:AN/EW. Basically, you're a pain in the neck and wasting everyone's time in a futile activity. LTSally (talk) 12:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

January 2010

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. NJA (t/c) 14:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Persistent attempts to add inappropriate links

As previously explained, watchtowerlies.com is a poor quality website and a link to it from the Jehovah's Witness article is unacceptable under Wikipedia's policies on external links. You have been blocked from Wikipedisa once already for your persistent attempts to add the link. Please don't start this again or you will be blocked again. LTSally (talk) 22:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Website link

You are a pain in the neck LTSally. You won't accept any site that criticizes the Watchtower. You give poor arguments to justify what you do. Go get a real job instead of working for the Watchower. You won't get rid of me, trust me. It just started.

I spend most of my time on Wikipedia dealing with one-eyed JWs who want to remove unflattering facts about the Watch Tower Society. Unlike you, I work within Wikipedia's policies. LTSally (talk) 22:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WatchtowerNews site

The WatchtowerNews site is not appropriate as an external link on the JW article. Though the site name implies that it provides news about JWs, the page only provides negative links, include sensationalist claims such as implying that murders are more common among JWs than in other areas of society. You have already been blocked previously for adding inappropriate links. Please only add links to sites that are reliable and notable. If you are not sure about a site that has been removed from an article, or believe there is legitimate reason for its inclusion, discuss first.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ELNO

Read it. Love it. Especially pay attention to #11. ...but what do you think? ~BF izz 17:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given your response to the removal of inappropriate links you added, it's obvious your removal of the official Watch Tower Society links is some sort of feeble payback. You are clearly vandalizing the article and you're in danger of being banned again. WP:ELYES and WP:ELNO provide the policies and they're pretty clear. LTSally (talk) 20:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I actually thought the six screens of watchtower website was a good one. I hadn't seen that one before and it's well done. But once again it doesn't meert the criteria for inclusion. LTSally (talk) 20:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stop

Please desist from adding links that you (should) know are going to be removed. The main JW article is a general article, which warrants external links that discuss the religion in a general way; it may be appropriate for certain websites with a specific focus to be listed at articles specifically dealing with those issues, if they are reliable and notable websites. Wikipedia is not a place to draw attention to your preferred anti-JW websites. You will be reported if you continue to make inappropriate edits without discussion.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing

You have been reported.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Automyte. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

edit warring

Please cease edit warring at Jehovah's Witnesses -- use article talk page. Gerardw (talk) 10:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

February 2010

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 55 hours for continued edit warring (initial report and a new observation by uninvolved party here at WQA), and an inability to work collaboratively through discussion when called out on it (see response to uninvolved user's observations here). This must end through proper discussion to build consensus. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. NJA (t/c) 07:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Automyte (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I don't understand why I am blocked. I am just adding useful links and LTSally and Jeffro77 don't stop deleting them, they don't listen to me, they always invent questionnable arguments to remove links of sites that oppose the Watchtower(Jehovah's Witnesses). They are warring, not me. This is unfair. I beleive that Jehovah's Witnesses and their supporters should be blocked from editing just like Scientology was.

Decline reason:

I am declining your request for unblock because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
- understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.

Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

July 2011

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Flatulence, you may be blocked from editing. Atterion Talk•Contribs 18:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]