User talk:Quaker24

I think we should talk further instead of arguing over wikipedia. I would like to give you my email address if this was more secure. Can you think of any way we could set up personal correspondance and quit this nonsense?

Yes, I would like that a lot if you would please give me your email or some other contact information so this article does not lose value from a debate, I have tried to contact you earlier, but I don't think you have recieved it, just give some contact info and lets work this out Thank you Quaker24 21:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)Quaker24

You can email me at: lyons24000@yahoo.com

I look forward to hearing from you.

Just in case I can't reach you be my email, my email is: debest@locl.net. Some of my emails won't go out, but once I recieve one, they always do, plus email come in just fine. Quaker24 01:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Please email me since my email recieves and then I can email, but I can't send the first message, I am sorry I don't know why my email adress is above. Quaker24 06:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Joyce Meyer
You recently made a change to the infobox in the Joyce Meyer article - changing the education level from high school diploma to PhD in Theology. I have reverted it back &mdash; please see the comment on the article's talk page. It is Wikipedia policy that information must be reliably sourced. I did try to research this claim, but have not been able to find any evidence that she has formal education beyond high school. &mdash; ERcheck (talk) 13:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC) [

John 1:1
I noticed that, a while back, you contributed signifcantly to this article. There is currently a discussion on the talk page about whether the current state of the article needs (1) major revision, (2) re-stubified and then re-written, or (3) moved into a different article with a broader context. Please stop by and share your thoughts. Pastordavid 22:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Abortion
One of the founding policies of Wikipedia is Neutral Point of View. All articles on Wikipedia must be written to conform with this policy, which means, basically, that we don't take sides on an issue. The view that abortion is wrong is a personal opinion, as is the view that abortion is acceptable, and, while Wikipedia can cover both of these points of view in articles like Abortion debate, it cannot state definitively that either POV is the correct one, because that would be against NPOV.

Talk:Abortion is a place to discuss the article, Abortion, not a place to debate what you think of abortion. Your was reminiscent of the off-topic, conversational posts we sometimes get on Talk:Abortion, so that is why I removed it. After all, Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. But if you intended to seriously address a concern you had regarding the article, it would perhaps be helpful to raise specific issues you find, rather than to simply state that "this article is way too pro-choice." The article is written from NPOV, so, it's not intended to promote or conform to any point of view, pro-choice or pro-life. -Severa (!!!) 02:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. Please remember to observe our core policies. Erth64net 04:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Mother Teresa
Hi Quaker24, thanks for your note on my talk page. In response to your question, in the article Mother Teresa, you introduced the following: "...although the Catholic Church teaches if they died without baptism they would go to hell so she did it out of mercy." The first part is simply untrue. Both the first and second parts of your edit are unsourced. Therefore it appears to be your point of view, which is not allowed in Wikipedia. Regards, Accurizer 12:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This seems to be your interpretation of Catechism of the Catholic Church 1257. To say that the church believes the unbaptized will go to hell is misleading. Take a look at Catechism of the Catholic Church 1258–1261. Clearly there are exceptions. Regards, Accurizer 13:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't vandalize
Your vandalizing of Carlson Twins is not appreciated. __meco 22:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * What do you mean vadelism, I didn't vandelise them, the article had said that they were gay and have had sex with men since they were infants, I deleted this, how is this vandelism? Quaker24 02:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * That was my mistake. You removed some of the vandalism. However the article had been subjected to much more vandalism, i.e. almost complete erasure. The best way to revert vandalism is to trace the article's history back to the last valid edit and restore that. __meco 08:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Lindsay Lohan
Sorry, but the grammar is correct, because it lists two people with the same last name and includes said last name after the second and not the first, making the two a single grammatical pair. In other words, for grammatical purposes, "Paris Hilton and Nicky Hilton" are two sisters; "Paris and Nicky Hilton" is a pair of sisters. RadioKirk (u|t|c)  04:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Catholic and Roman Catholic
First you are strongly mistaken when you say the Roman Catholics do not refer to them selves as such in any document. Secondly in Wikipedia it is considered a necessary distinction to make when there are many other churches not aligned with Rome who consider themselves to be Catholic. Please see Talk:Roman Catholic Church/Archive 7 for the 2006 debate about the issue. .To revert Roman Catholic to Catholic in a case like this which has been so extensively discussed is POV pushing to the point of vandalism and going against a strong Wikipedia consensus. Dabbler 13:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

This is your POV. I have a question. Ever time I have ever tried to make wikipedia more accurate by removing incorrect terms I have always been told I am vandalising. Everyone with power on wikipedia gets THEIR way, but not me because I am trying to do the right thing. Were in any offical Church document does the Church call herself ROMAN Catholic? Quaker24 05:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Have a look at this search page from the Vatican website Vatican web page search I used the term "Roman Catholic" and English as my parameters if it doesn't come up with all my hits. Basically the church itself uses the term when dealing with non-Roman Catholic churches to differentiate itself from the others, just as Wikipedia does. Dabbler 11:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Jehovah God
An editor has nominated Jehovah God, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 18:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

okay, I would just like to say that I feel that there is much take about how we got the name Jehovah and the debate over the name in the article Jehovah, however, I feel that it is unfair that other gods such as Baal, Adonis, or Allah all have their own article on WHO they are and not just what they name is. If that makes sense I hope that you will give postive contributions to the article. Like I said all the articles about the Tetragrammaton (Jehovah, or Yahweh) fail to cover on who the God is, but mainly talk about the name and the history of the name, not the history of the God Himself and what the Bible and other history has to say. Thank you Quaker24 (talk) 18:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, this god is covered at God in Abrahamic religions as well as God in general. Please stop reverting the Jehovah God redirect.  Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 14:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

April 2008
Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Nomination of Miniature Golden Retriever for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Miniature Golden Retriever is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Miniature Golden Retriever until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. &mdash; anndelion    &#8251;   22:08, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)