Talk:Seventh-day Adventist Church/Archive 7

message: Please consider WP:NOT and WP:EL when contributing to the article. --Maniwar (talk) 15:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please answer the direct questions put to you. --e.Shubee 16:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I stated on our talk page, I think you have a WP:COI and should step away from these topics. You have an agenda and all your edits cause strife rather than community spirit. I encourage you to walk away and regroup. Take warnings from the many editors who have given you tips on this very page. This would be my advice to you. --Maniwar (talk) 04:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Please Consider [[WP:NOT]] and [[WP:EL]]

message: This conflict has been brewing for a few months now (although generally at a low level).  I recently cautioned E.Shubee that I am fairly close to requesting a community siteban for disruptive editing.  Prior to this I have blocked E.Shubee for as long as 1 month for policy violations.  He entered the adopt-a-user program at my recommendation and was later un-adopted by his mentor, who then supported the one month block and considered E.Shubee the primary aggressor in a dispute where the other participants were attempting to be civil.  I have not issued any blocks or warnings toward the other editors at Adventism-related pages. DurovaCharge! 22:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment 

message: From the discussion of this section, which took a deviation for a bit, the editors have been more in favor of leaving the links out. As a result, the temporary removal of the links, by consensus, will be permanent. I'd just like to take a moment and encourage all parties to familiarize or re-familiarize themselves with WP:NOT and WP:EL. If a link is to be placed into a document, it has to be justified and lend support to something in the article. Citing them as a source is the best way to accomplish this. Additionally, since they are already a part of the criticism article, and the main article refers them to it, then the coverage is there. Lastly, any item can be called for consensus in wikipedia, and by consensus it can be removed or added.
Consensus comments:
*None of those critical external websites are reputable and therefore have no right of themselves to be on the main page. However, informative sites that push a single perspective are acceptable if balanced with opposing points of view. Note how the structure to the external links in the criticism section does that.  Do you want the external links on both pages? --e.Shubee 14:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...Again, what I have said is an explanation of how I have removed links in the past.  Often I have removed links with a comment inviting discussion on the talk page, and it rarely occurs.  My belief is unless someone is willing to defend the with clear and logical reasons as to its relevance, its inclusion is not warranted. -Fermion 08:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Consensus Results

message: I reverted a previous edit by Tonicthebrown in which he edited my post. This seems to be causing some confusion, so I reverted it to correct the problem. If you look here  and here  you will see how he edited my post. Here is the original post  before the edit. --Maniwar (talk) 18:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: why the last edit was made