User talk:Nancyinthehouse/August-September 2013

August 2013
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from World Mission Society Church of God. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. ''

And there is for your kind info no demand that people "sign in" to edit, as you ask for in you ES. '' Sam   &#x1f3a4;   17:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Ahn Sahng-hong, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. This diff 569729765 Sam   &#x1f3a4;   19:31, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Sam Sailor. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Ahn Sahng-hong without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry: I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, you can use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! ''This diff. Your ES again reads "stop disruptive editing without signing in". There is nothing disruptive in adding sourced material to the article, even if it may be of a nature that you yourself do not like. On Wiki everybody can edit, and they do not have to sign in. That you ask people to sign in, that you ask people to discuss before editing, and that you remove sourced material appears to be some kind of ownership you have towards articles having to do with the World Mission Society Church of God. '' Sam   &#x1f3a4;   19:41, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The information added to it are unreliable sources and yet you don't seem to agree with them. You seem to have some kind of ownership towards the articles. Please be neutral and stop considering other religions as "cults." --Nancyinthehouse (talk) 01:19, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Regarding your recent revert to the Ahn Sahng-hong article, please refrain from such actions without discussing each issue that you have as per WP:DRNC. " You neglected to explain why you personally disagree with the edit, so you haven't given people a handle on how to build the consensus with you that you desire. Next to that, the behaviour discourages bold contributions, which are essential to building Wikipedia. "  You have already stated that the references are unreliable but they most likely are not ALL unreliable. You must be more specific. Also, your reverting to a version that you created not only gives the impression that you do not respect the time and effort that went into improving the article, but is also akin to WP:OWN and ownership behaviour. Please take the time to engage the editors who made the latest major changes to the article prior to the slurry of reverts to address your concerns. Superfly94 (talk) 01:59, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Superfly94. Everything is specifically explained by many users in the talkpage. You seem that you're owning this article.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Ahn Sahng-hong. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. One more time and you will be blocked, believe me. Drmies (talk) 04:17, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

The WMSCOG awards link still isn't working for me. Probably the browser I'm on. Meh. Superfly94 (talk) 03:00, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

http://english.watv.org/awards/index.asp Hmm.. It seems to work fine. Nancyinthehouse (talk) 02:46, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help
Cookie for you! Thanks for including the reference I needed :D -Elizabeth077 (talk) 06:10, 30 September 2013 (UTC)