User talk:2600:100E:B0EC:5C8:D432:A1D8:AA6:5A89

February 2023
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. —MelbourneStar ☆ talk 06:17, 23 February 2023 (UTC)


 * As an academic, I respect your decision to revert my, shall we call them, *suggested* edits. (I figured they wouldn't last the night, but I assumed it would be a JW PR team that reverted them, not an apparently neutral third party.)  I assume you did not grow up in their cult.  I assume one of your best friends as a child was not molested by his older brother who was molested by their father who was...I don't even know how far that chain went, covered up by the cult (Wikipedia "denomination").  I assume you have not been watching the news about the charges finally coming forward in Pennsylvania, which are giving survivors hope that the whole organization might FINALLY implode under the weight of their own sins.  I respect your decision as a neutral third party, albeit with a sad sense of cynicism for the pros and cons of neutrality.  Please save evidence of my *suggested* edits and, should history bear them out, put this as a footnote in the archives.  I fully acknowledge that I was drunk when making those edits, and apologize if "cleaning up" after me took up too much of your time (I did limit my edits to the first paragraph, easily re-edited), but I similarly posit that I would not feel the need to drink, nor to make such edits, if the changes I made were untrue.  I appreciate your dedication to maintaining the neutrality of Wikipedia pages, even if in this specific case, I personally feel that neutrality may not be deserved by the subject.  I hope you have a wonderful evening! 2600:100E:B0EC:5C8:D432:A1D8:AA6:5A89 (talk) 06:52, 23 February 2023 (UTC)