User talk:SpiritualLineage
October 2012
[edit]
Please stop. Continuing to remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia without resolving the problem that the template refers to, may be considered disruptive editing. Further edits of this type may result in your account being blocked from editing. 2001:558:6045:A0:391F:B005:179D:8DD9 (talk) 19:55, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
This is your last warning. The next time you remove the maintenance templates from Wikipedia articles without resolving the problem that the template refers to, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. 76.102.49.177 (talk) 20:02, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Mark Cahill shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 20:02, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 20:11, 31 October 2012 (UTC)November 2012
[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Mark Cahill, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Jim1138 (talk) 05:42, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
SpiritualLineage (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Your reason here SpiritualLineage (talk) 04:49, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Decline reason:
The one thing about this block which might be reconsidered is that it so astonishingly short. Clearly your only purpose here is blatant promotion of a person, apart from the fact that you have persistently done such disruption as removing other editors' talk page posts in order to hide what they have been saying. You are very lucky that you have not yet been blocked indefinitely. If you believe you have reliable evidence that content of an article is invalid, then you can raise your concerns and give your evidence when your block expires, but that will not justify trying to force your version through by edit warring, nor will it justify editing to promote your point of view, nor trying to suppress other people's expression of their opinions on talk pages. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:36, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
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.
I don't know if this will get your attention, but I hope it does. We really need your help. These edits on Mark Cahill's Talk page are to stop a full scale harassment campaign that's been launched by Tony Miano. He's posted his own personal article on the internet and is citing it on Mark Cahill's Talk page and valid proof of his assertions, when they are not. I just don't what else to do to get your help. In short, Tony Miano is trying to destroy Mark Cahill. He's building a fair amount of documentation against himself. It is harassment and we're hoping he comes to his senses. He's challenging Mark to the public forum so he can make Mark submit to his (tony's) standards. And he's doing all of this under the guise of love and concern, but it's a veil to cover his intent to destroy Mark. This is why you had to freeze Mark's main page. There are several guys working with Tony as well. So we really need your help. I have Mark Cahill's permission to ask you to remove his talk page. Tony has made false statements on this page that are his own personal opinion and are designed to smear Mark and ruin his livelihood. Please help. I don't know how else to contact you, and any past silence on my part is just because your site instructions are so difficult to understand. Thank you.
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. --Hu12 (talk) 05:19, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi Mufka, I want to thank you for extending the protection on Mark Cahill's page. Some of the misinformation on his Talk page has been posted by the people who necessitated the freezing of Mark's Main Page. Some of the information on the Talk page is incorrect and exaggerated. 'Neolights' is working with or is Tony Miano and he is citing his own article which makes that reference not objective, but a conflict of interest. I've included the statements below from the Talk page for you to see. The actual misinformation is as follows: Ray Comfort, Emeal Zwayne and Jon Speed have nothing verifiable or documented on the internet against Mark Cahill. Neolights' statement is undocumented and unsubstantiated. Neolights is citing his own article making this a conflict of interest. Also, Neolights is exaggerating the Satan comment. That statement is in the book but is referring to something else, and not referring to Calvinism, which neolights is extremely sensitive about, and which prompted him to launch his campaign against Mark Cahill to smear his good name. Thank you again for extending the freeze his Main page.
Here's what's currently on the Talk page: Many People in the Christian Community, including: Ray Comfort, Tony Miano [3], Shane Dodson [4] Emeal Zwyane, Jon Speed and others have responded. Additionally If we look at Mark Cahill's newest book "The Watchman" he makes his view very clear in the 8th chapter of the book. In this chapter he clearly identifies Calvinism as unbiblical and of satan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neolights01 (talk • contribs) 23:05, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
It would be accurate to say: Some people in the Christian community, including: Shane Dodson [4] have responded. Additionally if we look at Mark Cahill's newest book "The Watchman" he identifies Calvinism as unbiblical.
Let me know if I can submit to you additional information for Mark's Main page that is safe. Thank you for your help! Spiritual Lineage05:35, 21 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpiritualLineage (talk • contribs)
In case you guys are checking my talk page, which I'm still learning to use, please freeze Mark Cahill's Main page the way it is edited by Spiritual Lineage at noon December 4, 2012. Thanks for your help. These vandals are relentless in trying to destroy Mark Cahill's livelihood. Thank you! 19:01, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- If you edit the page again without engaging in discussion you will be blocked indefinitely. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 00:49, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
December 2012
[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 16:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)