GraMar89

Edit warring at Jehovah's Witnesses publications

Our policy on revert warring can be seen at {{uw-3rr}}. There is a risk that others will see your presence here as intended to advance a POV and not make neutral improvements to articles. Consider asking for support from other editors at Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses publications. If you continue to re-insert your personal opinion into articles without waiting for any review by others you are risking a block. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 21:32, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Please see the discussion between Jethro77 and myself in the link below. He has specified 5 areas that I have replied to, and so I hope you will see the flaws in the objections Jethro77 is trying to levy at the updates that need to be made within that article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jehovah%27s_Witnesses_publications GraMar89 (talk) 16:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not aware of a user named Jethro77 involved in any relevant discussion. Aside from that, Ed, by all means have a read of GraMar89's assertions about biblical interpretation at the discussion linked above.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:40, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

GraMar89, our policies have already been explained to you. If you continue to revert at Jehovah's Witnesses publications (as you did here) without getting any support from other editors on the talk page, you risk being blocked by any administrator without further notice. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 03:23, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

This article simply cannot work while it is based on the opinions of one or two that are panicking over some bigoted stories they've heard. GraMar89 (talk) 12:32, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

The article is based on sources, and not merely on 'stories' editors have 'heard', and the only one 'panicking' here is you.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:35, 27 May 2015 (html

That's an interesting opinion Jeff, so the following sources must be right... after all, they are sources, yes? How many pages are you responsible for "editing"? Check out these links, please:

Top 10 reasons why Wikipedia cannot be relied on: http://www.findingdulcinea.com/news/education/2010/march/The-Top-10-Reasons-Students-Cannot-Cite-or-Rely-on-Wikipedia.html

Six in ten pages contain factual errors... That's about two thirds of Wikipedia... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2131458/Up-articles-Wikipedia-contain-factual-errors.htmlhtml

Nine out of ten health references on Wikipedia are wrong... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-27586356

Yes, Blackcab, Jehovah has left Wikipedia very much alone, as shall I. GraMar89 (talk) 16:39, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 14:40, 26 May 2015 (UTC)