User talk:Lovpjoy22

Welcome!

A cup of warm tea to welcome you!

Hello, Lovpjoy22, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you are enjoying editing and want to do lots more. Some useful pages to visit are:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Wikipedia Teahouse (a user-friendly help forum)
• The Wikipedia Adventure (a fun game-like tour to help get you oriented within Wikipedia)

You can sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

If you need any help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. We're so glad you're here! All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:48, 31 March 2015 (UTC).

April 2015

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Vaccination and religion, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. CardinalDan (talk) 08:19, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

The website fellowdiv.org does not appear to be a reliable source. Edits which include this link as a reference will more than likely be removed. Please see the following page for how to identify reliable sources for use in medical articles:

• WP:MEDRS

--Harizotoh9 (talk) 18:13, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Clarification on Fellowdiv.org and Congregation of Universal Wisdom

Please note that references to Fellowdiv.org is not at all as a source for "medical research". It is used as a reference to evidence what that organization "believe". For example, a citation to the website of a "flat earth society" which claims that they are consistent with science is not at all used a source for agreeing or disagreeing with their belief, or to support or disprove whether the earth is flat, but is rather a that factual reference to the reality that such kind of a group exists, and that their "belief"(!) is that they are "scientific". Anyone is welcome to cite facts to show that such group has an irrational belief and incorrect understanding of science, but that is an entirely different issue from that fact such a group does belief what they do believe. After all, that sort of a group is a "religion", not a science. The existence of "niche religions" is clearly a significant and relevant trend. It is significant enough that the New York Times has an article on it. Just because one may agree or disagree with it, it does not mean that the fact of its existence should be censored. The New York Times clearly took the approach of covering the existence of such religions even though the tone of the article is highly skeptical of their merit. Wikipedia should do no less.

--Lovejoy22 (talk) 18:13, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Vaccine controversies

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Vaccine controversies. 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 that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. 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. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:01, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Fellowship of Divine Tenets

I'm curious about how you learned of this church? -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:24, 12 April 2015 (UTC)