User talk:Nathaniel J. Merritt

August 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Talk:Concordant Version, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look Agent Orange, I don't care any more. It's *EXPLETIVE DELETED* people such as yourself that make Wikipedia such a shoddy source of misinformation. Write whatever you like, and keep living inside that dark dank Watchtower. However, you're mistaken on the long list of authors for the CV article. Hey, have a riot. *Yawn*

Nathaniel J. Merritt (talk) 20:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Back up your chariot Orange Mike. I didn't say he owns it I said he wrote it. That means he is the best one to edit it. What's wrong with you people? If you want the proper changes to be made, let me make them. Or let Jim Coram make them. How else are they going to be made Mike? Answer me Mike. I've been acquainted with the Concordant Version since age 22--I'm now 56--so I have some small experience with it. Plus, you keep speaking of Jim Coram as if he is some huge shadowy mystery figure. "Is Coram REALLY the managing editor? Is Nathaniel REALLY working at his behest? Let us sit and theorize rather than DO something to find out!" Just email him or call him. I've given you people the CPC email address: email@concordant.org The website URL: www.concordant.org As well as the CPC phone number which you can obtain the same way I did: Going to the CPC web-site.

Is it a good thing to be a Jehovah's Witness Mike? To be in over your head on something this pathetically simple because your fellow WTBTA drones strongly discouraged you from going to college? Better watch out Mike! I'm a disfellowshipped JW and proud of it. I'm just oozing with demons and I might send one into your bar of soap! Demons demons demons everywhere...

Nathaniel J. Merritt (talk) 18:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ownership

Your edit summaries are filled with phrases like "At the request of James Coram, managing editor of the Concordant Publishing Concern". I hope you realize that Coram has no rights over this article, and indeed such interference with this article (if he is in fact encouraging you to edit this article in accordance with his wishes) constitutes a blatant violation of our rules about conflicts of interest. Nobody "owns" an article in Wikipedia; least of all the subject of the article. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there Orange Blossom Special! Again with the questions shrouded in the doubt of mystery! "If he is in fact encouraging you to edit this article." Look, Orange Blossomn, just email or call him ansd solve the mystery. It really is that simple. m'k? m'k.

Nathaniel J. Merritt (talk) 18:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

September 2009

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Concordant Version, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My valid reason is that the man who wrote the article to begin with, James Coram of the Concordant Publishing Concern, asked me to do so. What more do you want?

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button 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 useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know, and I forgot to do so.

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Concordant Version. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever.

Nathaniel J. Merritt (talk) 21:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, which you did here: Talk:Concordant Version. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Concordant Version, you will be blocked from editing. In addition, I removed an unsourced assertion and the addition of a link to an online bookseller. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mike. did it ever occur to your magnificent mind that editing often entails REMOVAL rather than simply adding or rewriting? Probably not. I deleted what I deleted because I was requested to so by James Coram, author of the article. You are really a piece of work Mike, and I mean that in the NICEST way. I'm impressed with you. Really. What a guy!

Nathaniel J. Merritt (talk) 18:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James Coram is not "the author of the article"; a long string of Wikipedia editors, beginning with User:Wiki-uk, User:KathrynLybarger, User:Alambra, User:Pete unseth, [[User:Schwalz, the persons at IP 41.244.58.239 and 41.208.48.176, User:Jarry1250 and User:Jeffro77, are the authors. That's what we mean when we warn about illusions of "ownership" of an article. Even if Coram is User:Wiki-uk (and as far as I know he is not; Wiki-uk specializes in Bahai-related articles), that would be irrelevant. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits, such as those you made to Concordant Version. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 18:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for attempting to harass other users. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Orange Mike | Talk 00:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--Orange Mike | Talk 00:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Ownership" and personal attacks

First off, boy do you have the wrong idea if you think I'm a JW! I'm a former Baptist turned Quaker, as a glance at my userpage would show you. As to the whole ownership thing:

Coram has a strong conflict of interest with regard to the Concordant Version, and should avoid the topic entirely - if you are a close friend/colleague of his, so should you; and
Our core principles of verifiability and reliable sources mean that we can't accept things like e-mails and "call this guy up" as "sources" for edits. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]