User talk:Guillen

Thank you for experimenting with the page User:Stephan Schulz on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like 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. Saaber 14:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to userpage User:Zahid Abdassabur

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. MaxSem 14:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to Bible society, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 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. Saaber 14:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"pretending to give less ons on ortography to native speakers of english indeed"

Not that I'm not given to lecturing occasionally (lesson: Point out at least two errors in your above phrase), but I don't usually do so on ortography. If you are refering to my edit summary on Elizabeth Hope, I was refering to a property of the Mediawiki software that will treat a line beginning with a space in a special way. Check out the old version to see what I mean. Next time, please use my talk page to contact me. Thanks. BTW, in my dictionary, "improvabability" is a normal word. --Stephan Schulz 14:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your Recent Edits

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. As a member of the Wikipedia community, I would like to remind you of Wikipedia's neutral-point-of-view policy for editors. In the meantime, please be bold and continue contributing to Wikipedia. Thank you!

Specifically, your replacement of the Spiritual warfare article has been discussed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spiritual warfare. It is not appropriate to replace a well-sourced article with your opinion. By all means, please work to improve articles, correct errors, or add additional information, but Wikipedia is not a soapbox. BigDT 03:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, a handful of your edits to Plymouth Brethren seem to have been copied directly from http://www.brethrenonline.org/faqs/PBHIST.HTM. I have reverted your changes. We cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. Perhaps you would like to rewrite the article in your own words. For more information, take a look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Happy editing! BigDT 04:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in this edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APlymouth_Brethren&diff=55574372&oldid=55465850, you seem to have edited another user's comments on a talk page. Talk pages are not considered part of the encyclopedic content. Your comments on a talk page are your own and it is generally considered inappropriate to change someone else's comments except to remove vandalism, personal attacks, etc. BigDT 04:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bible society

I have reverted all of your edits to Bible society, including those made under 201.208.209.247 and 201.208.220.134, as violating WP:NPOV. Your classification of these edits as minor when they clearly were not, and your lack of explanation on the talk page after three other users reverted your edits, are also unacceptable. Melchoir 05:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see you also edited Talk:Plymouth Brethren to alter another user's comments. This is dishonest behavior, and I have reverted it. Melchoir 05:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See my reply to your (Guillen's) unsigned comments on my talk page. --Jim Henry 15:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic "bias"

I have reverted your edits again. Please try to understand:

It is not appropriate to place OPINION in Wikipedia articles. If you are concerned that the existing Spiritual warfare article is biased in favor of the Catholics, the solution is to fix the biased statements. Completely replacing the article with your own opinion is not an acceptable solution.
With regard to Sankta lusse, I have replied to your comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sankta lusse. There is already an article called St. Lucia Day. That article is the place for content concerning the identity of the individual.
With regard to Bible society, you blanked out a large section of the article and replaced it with a somewhat inflammatory statement. Removing content without explanation and discussion is not acceptable. If there is something wrong with that section, you need to tell what is wrong with it on the talk page, not just blank it out. As for the statement that you replaced it with, you need some kind of reference - a source - that backs up your statement.
With regard to the comments you left on my user page, user pages are not the appropriate place to start a conversation. You should place such comments on talk pages. Also, accusing someone who is an evangelical of showing hatred and bias towards evangelicals is not a great way to get along in life.

BigDT 23:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spiritual Warfare

While the guidance to be bold can support one attempt at a massive rewrite of an article, repeated attempts constitute recklessness. While I agree that article needs improvement, please make slow gradual steps please read the Manual of Style and related guidance before doing another massive rewrite. Please pay attention to the guide to layout portion, as that clearly is one of the areas in which approvement is needed GRBerry 14:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to your comments on User:BigDT: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users." Please keep this in mind while editing. Thanks. Also, if you wish to talk to another user as a user, you should use their Talk page, not their user page. Talk pages are for discussion. GRBerry 14:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also note that you have been marking all of your edits as minor. This is inappropriate. See the guidance at Help:Minor edit as to what should be marked as minor. GRBerry 14:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Last chance

GRBerry told you about personal attacks. Please do not insult people, like you did here [1]. If you do it again, I will block you from editing. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Final Warning

This is your last warning. If you continue to make personal attacks, you may be blocked for disruption. Many concerns have been raised about your actions on Wikipedia. I would like to ask you to please calm down and consider how you can contribute to, rather than damage, the community behind this encyclopedia. AmiDaniel (talk) 23:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for disrupting Wikipedia by making personal attacks. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires. AmiDaniel (talk) 00:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please use this time to read up on how to make contributions that will improve the encyclopedia. I specifically endorse Wikipedia:Assume Good Faith and Wikipedia:Civility for your interaction with other users. For work on articles, all of the following is relevant.

Welcome!

Hello, Guillen, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that 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, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

I would like to see you become a positive contributor to the encyclopedia. You have shown me some evidence of willingness to listen, even if you didn't get the most important point. I'd suggest that you start slowly - edit one sentence or paragraph at a time, citing sources for everything that you add. In fact, start by adding, rather than deleting or rewriting. Respectfully review other edits to articles via the history tool at the top of the page. You have the potential, should you choose to exercise it. GRBerry 02:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It has been established that you engaged in sockpuppetry by evidence presented here:
here, and you are therefore blocked for period of three weeks.
You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires.

Your posts to talk pages

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Specifically, copying and pasting copyrighted text to talk pages is unacceptable. If you have something to say, say it, but it is not acceptable to take text from somewhere else. BigDT 22:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]