User talk:Lionpride82

Welcome!

A cartoon centipede reads books and types on a laptop. — The Wikipede and the Picture Tutorial. *(image credit)*

Welcome!

Hello, Lionpride82, and welcome to Wikipedia! I have noticed that you are fairly new! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. I also see that some of your recent edits, such as the ones to the page Honey, show an interest in the use of images and/or photos on Wikipedia.

Did you know that ...

...wikipedia has a very stringent image use policy?
...most images from Flickr, online news websites, and other web sources are copyrighted?
...wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously?
...freely-licensed images should be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, a central location for images where they can be used on all Wikipedia projects?
...we recommend that new users use our "files for upload" process - at least until you get the hang of things?

If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{Help me}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! User:Tucoxn (talk) 07:20, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blanket removal

Hi, thanks for calling attention to the right page number not being included in the reference for "Global Citizens," but never remove an entire section supported by 5 quotes because one page number is wrong - that's hardly constructive editing. Even if we assume that there hadn't been a page number attributed to Seager (which there was - though now I've added an additional page number), there would still have been 3 sources. The 12 million number is reprinted in lots of books, but they're all basing it on Soka Gakkai's own number - sometimes the author makes this clear, sometimes they don't. What is obvious however is that Seager certainly had no means of independently verifying this number.Kiruning (talk) 00:30, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Soka Gakkai criticized as being a "cult", etc.

In this edit, you removed both reliable sourced text as well as sources themselves, particularly the Furukawa book, which has the title, "The Soka Gakkai as a Cult" (2000).
Furthermore, the edit summary given and statements on the Talk page in now way support such removal, for which there is no consensus.
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you.--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 04:20, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you don't want to give consent to the change, doesn't mean there is not consensus, as every other person participating in this discussion disagrees with you. I had substantial reasons for my edit which I expressed on the talk page. Additionally, many of the editors participating in that discussion agreed with my point of view. This is in no way an "Edit War."

Lionpride82 (talk) 17:48, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is the final warning I'm going to give you.

The next time you make a disruptive pov-pushing edit on the Soka Gakkai article I will file a thread at the AN/I noticeboard about your conduct.--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 06:31, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well-researched edits with solid arguments that are backed up on the talk page in consensus with other active editors is not "disruptive editing." If anything your constant deletion of the constructive edits both I and other editors have made to the page warrants a "warning." Lionpride82 (talk) 19:12, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]