User talk:Edwardjones2320

Article talk pages

Please see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines - it in not appropriate to delete material from article talk pages as you did at Talk:House church. If it is necessary, automatic archiving can be set up, but I don't think there is any need for that yet. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:43, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will restate the reminder that it is not permitted to delete material from article talk pages. It is hard to tell whether you were deleting old material that should have either been left standing or archived, or were removing the comments of others. Because it may appear to be the latter, just DON'T DO IT. It gives a very strong impression that you have asserted ownership of the article. There is a counter-intuitive matter of taking too much interest in an article. If you take so much interest in an article that you cannot tolerate edits by others, you run the risk of being topic-banned from it. Please do not try to own House church and Talk: House church and please do not delete material from talk pages. You risk being blocked. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:01, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cortes Wesley Randell

To understand why I reverted your edits, please be advised to read WP:COI and WP:SOCK. Thank you. WeatherFug (talk) 09:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote on my Talk page: "Can you provide some information on your association with Cortes Wesley Randell and to why you only want to publish derogatory information about his past and not include biographical information or a description of more recent events? Is it possible to produce some sort of balanced presentation that does include the mistakes of the past as well as the good works of the present?"; Hmm, it seems you completely missed the point in my suggesting you to read WP:COI and WP:SOCK, so let me clarify. Your first (and once repeated) edit on Cortes Wesley Randell was restoring some content from the article's history that had been previously reverted several times by me and admin User:Nagle, because it was written and placed by the subject himself, who operated under several user names and IP's. Your editing leads me to believe that you may have been asked by the subject to support him in this matter. Were you? Regards, WeatherFug (talk) 19:08, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

House church

Please note that if you once more abuse Wikipedia articles by engaging in personal sermonising on the subject as you have been doing in the house church article, I shall report the matter - this is an encyclopaedia, and we do not include editorialising personal opinion in articles. Ever. This is an encyclopaedia, written for people of all faiths, and none. It is not your personal pulpit. If that is what you are looking for, you will need to find it elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:49, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notification

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

See [1]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:08, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding edits to House church

Hello! Edwardjones2320, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us!

Some people seem to be having some perhaps reasonable concerns regarding your recent edit history. It might be useful for you to perhaps talk with a more experienced editor at the above page and get some input regarding how to best and least problematically consider adding similar material in the future. John Carter (talk) 21:05, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

March 2015

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Talk: House church. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. The allegation that an experienced editor has been vandalizing an article, when there is in fact a content dispute, is a serious personal attack. ANY further false claims of vandalism are likely to result in a block. If you have been editing long enough to know what vandalism is, you have been editing long enough to know what is not vandalism. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:35, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks in edit summaries, which cannot be deleted except by administrative redaction, are even more serious than personal attacks on talk pages as such. Do not make personal attacks, such as "vandalizing", in edit summaries. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not assume ownership of articles as you did at Talk: House church. If you aren't willing to allow your contributions to be edited extensively or be redistributed by others, please do not submit them. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:36, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]