User talk:Theemute

August 2009[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from C. Peter Wagner. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Fribbulus Xax (talk) 00:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The recent edit you made to C. Peter Wagner constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to remove content from articles without explanation. Thank you. Intelligentsium 00:22, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The removal of my first contribution to this page was removed, which constitutes vandalism. It was based on verifiable information, and is important insight into the person of C. Peter Wagner. Do not remove it again.

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page C. Peter Wagner has been reverted.
Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): \bblog(?:cu|fa|harbor|mybrain|post|savy|spot|townhall)?\.com\b (links: http://herescope.blogspot.com/2005/10/c-peter-wagner-redefines-genesis-1.html). If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, or similar site, then please check the information on the external site thoroughly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creator's copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest).
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 00:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. 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.

Jclemens (talk) 01:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While you're blocked, please read WP:NPOV. Under no circumstances are you going to be allowed to add text saying that "apostasy" has been "exposed". The fact that he's a controversial figure can be included in a neutral and encyclopedic manner. Please also take a while to read WP:RS as well--you have 24 hours in which you won't be otherwise able to contribute to Wikipedia. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 01:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|Unfortunately, I seem to have not understood that what I saw as someone "edit warring" with me was actually a bot that was rejecting my edits due to a particular link included in my submission. Having just joined Wiki today, I took a little while to find the history and then understand what had happened. As you will see from the history, I then attempted to return the text I edited out. So the three reverts were due to my failure to understand how the system works. I have no problem restating the text to leave out the apostasy word, but feel it is very important for readers to understand that the subject has made some published statements that are "aberrent and heretical" to quote the apologetics index cited at the bottom of the article by another editor. So, I apologize for the lack of understanding of the rules but wish to reinsert my paragraph with the wording changes.}}

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Fair enough--have at it, but mind the neutrality.

Request handled by: Jclemens (talk) 06:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Autoblock #1550726 lifted or expired.

Request handled by: jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.