Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:15, 18 July 2010

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages 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. --SineBot (talk) 10:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I am signing all of my posts now. Thank you. Naturalpsychology (talk) 09:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)Naturalpsychology

Brevity

Please note the guidelines at WP:TALK, which include the excellent advice to be brief. In your comments at Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses you have not only repeated much of your lengthy comments about the "Satan's control" reference, but have copies screeds of material from the Watchtower Library that is quite unnecessary on this talk page. You have also inserted unsigned comments in the middle of mine, which renders the conversation pretty meaningnless to anyone else trying to read it. It is very hard to engage in a meaningful discussion when you are swamping the talk page with this material and failing to clearly identify the point you're trying to make. LTSally (talk) 10:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

LTSally: Thank you for your comments, Please remember the Misplaced Pages guidelines to be polite. Thank you. Naturalpsychology (talk) 09:08, 25 October 2009 (UTC)Naturalpsychology

In my comments in the future will, I will try to be more succinct. Naturalpsychology (talk) 09:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)Naturalpsychology. Please follow the Misplaced Pages guidelines and try, please to be polite. Thank you. Naturalpsychology (talk) 09:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)Naturalpsychology

Additions of http://.winmentalhealth.com/

RE;"...operates a psychology website which features self help and professional therapies in psychology. http://www.winmentalhealth.com "

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not add promotional material to articles or other Misplaced Pages pages. Advertising and using Misplaced Pages as a "soapbox" is strongly discouraged. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Misplaced Pages. Thank you.Template:Do not delete

If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Misplaced Pages, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Misplaced Pages's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

1. editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
3. linking to the Misplaced Pages article or website of your organization in other articles (see Misplaced Pages:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Misplaced Pages when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you.Template:Do not delete--Hu12 (talk) 18:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I deleted to the two links to the website, and will keep all of the above in mind in any contributions to Misplaced Pages. I am new to the Misplaced Pages editorial process and appreciate the above comments. Naturalpsychology (talk) 09:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)Naturalpsychology

Welcome, and please...

Be brief and clear. Your lengthy opening statements on new topics at the Jehovah's Witnesses talk page are tiring to read. Amen to that which others have already mentioned here on your talk page. Rather than presenting a lecture, find the key point that you are detailing--a proposed change or other concern--and state it as clearly and briefly as possible. Then bring up supporting material as the need arises.

We appreciate having a diverse team of wiki-editors, and your comments and contributions are certainly welcome here. I hope you don't take our advice as hostile. Best wishes. ...but what do you think? ~B F _(talk) 20:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I will try to be more succinct in my comments.Naturalpsychology (talk) 09:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC)Naturalpsychology

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages 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. --SineBot (talk) 09:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

A piece of advice

Dear user Naturalphychology,

I noticed your edit-war with LTSally, but I didn’t have the time understand the real issue at stake or even to get involved, because my schedule is very busy. I have personal experience with LTSally and I know firsthand how difficult he is in cooperation. See my talk page for further info on that. On the other hand, you also need to study carefully the WP policy concerning the editing, so that your claims may be al;ways sound not only on the basis of your personal knowledge or experience but on the basis of the standards of WP.

For the moment I would suggest you to work on positive things. For instance, the section about the beliefs of JWs is very poor and its very target is not to explain spherically what JWs believe, that is, how they view God, his will, the human race, the person etc, but simply how JWs differ from mainstream Christianity. So, here we actually have a distorted description of JWs, which though could be easily improved.

The last thing I want to say, for the moment, is that the whole involvement in WP takes a lot of time, and it takes even more time when we engage edit-warring and do endless negotiations with bad faith users, who don’t have other interests in life beyond WP and Internet in general.

--Scientia est opulentia (talk) 09:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice and help. SincerelyNatural (talk) 16:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)Naturalpsychology

I too have urged LTSally to moderate the userpage, however you might take care to remember that it goes both way. It appears you are pro and she is Anti. I don't know just the way it reads....Hell In A Bucket (talk) 23:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems to be my turn. I can see what Natural went through, and it seems to me that he was far too gentle with this fanatic. Not that I think any individual editor is going to make any improvement on any article on LTSally's turf. The only way WP will be able to overcome this bias will be as a community. Downstrike (talk) 16:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Please check your user page

Check whether the recent (last?) edit by an IP user 165.130.136.206 was something you wanted. If so, was this perhaps you having forgotten to login? If not, well you have a feisty crew within the 165.130.136.* address space, and likely your school? You have my sympathies. Shenme (talk) 07:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Please cease your harassment

Scott or whatever your name is, please stop posting your idiotic comments on my talk page. I have no interest in your opinions. LTSally (talk) 23:42, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Do note that Misplaced Pages pages starting with "User:" are in what is called the "user space" and do not have to follow the same rules as pages in the "article space" (See WP:User page). According to WP:User page#Removal of inappropriate content, if you find LTSally's (or anyone's) user page offensive, you should start a discussion in WP:Miscellany for deletion, and alert LTSally of your actions. Also, Misplaced Pages pages starting with "User talk:" are for talking to/with that user, and such pages are managed by that user. Your contributions will be more readily accepted by the Misplaced Pages community if they focus on specific article content, rather than particular contributors. ...but what do you think? ~BFizz 06:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the tip on handling offensive material. Sincerely Natural (talk) 23:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Natural

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages 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. --SineBot (talk) 00:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate it. --Natural (talk) 16:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Please make sure you log in when you edit or you may be accused of sockpuppetry. Note that "some with an extreme viewpoint" and "presents a balanced view" are your opinions and should not be added to the article. --NeilN 18:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Please advise editors when making a complaint about them

I have twice before raised with you the need to advise other editors if you are going to make complaints on Misplaced Pages administrator noticeboards. This is a common courtesy, allowing that editor to defend himself. Someone has pointed out to me that you have made another complaint about me on the COI noticeboard today. Once again you made no attempt to alert me, which suggests a level of deviousness on your part. You are also continuing to make unsigned edits and edits under anonymous IP addresses. Can you please try to familiarise yourself with some Misplaced Pages basics before you continue here? When making a comment, please sign in under your user name, and end your comment with four tildes. That's all -- just four tildes. Misplaced Pages will do the rest.

I appreciate you finally raising on the JW talk page a specific point you believe breaches the policy on neutrality. I have replied to this. Please try to be equally specific with any other objections, so each can be discussed, rather than making general complaints about books by apostates. This allows a reasoned discussion and will help to improve the article. LTSally (talk) 21:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I notified you twice that I was going to make a complaint, you deleted my comments both times on your page and sent me a nasty note that as still on my talk page. I had asked several times for you to please make changes in your talkpage, or I would ask to have your page deleted. I haven't done that yet, but am planning to. Why did you delete my comments from your page? --Natural (talk) 00:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC) If please you would reconsider taking off the questioned comments on your talk page. The adjectives are strong against Jehovah's Witnesses and aren't appropriate. Thanks. --Natural (talk) 00:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

You did suggest that at some time in the future you were going to make a complaint about my user page and seek its deletion. That is not sufficient information. When you make a complaint against an editor you need to advise the editor at that time and indicate where the complaint was made to allow that editor to defend himself. I deleted your comments from my talk page because it was tiresome rubbish that was stretched out with so many extraneous line spaces that it dominated my talk page. I also find it inappropriate to quote misapplied Bible texts at me when dealing with perceived breaches of Misplaced Pages policy. LTSally (talk) 01:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with LT, it doesn't matter you said you might do this things....You still have to notify the involved parties when you take action. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 01:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm still getting used to all the procedures, being somewhat new. In the future, if I have any formal complaint, I'll notify about the specific page. Thanks for the tips on procedures.Natural (talk) 00:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)Natural

ON a side note. it's important to maintain NPOV, but it is a good thing to see someone here that is from a pro stance.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it. I hope it genuinely helps the article.--Natural (talk) 03:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

It appears you are possibly a JW. I hope that a balanced view attracts more people to the faith. I was raised a witness, I was a unbaptised publisher and was removed when I was a teen. I still believe although disagree with some procedures, but hey we're all human...Hell In A Bucket (talk) 05:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the insight. I am a JW. I was raised a Jehovah's Witness, I had spiritual trouble as a teen, but was able to get it back together when in my 20s. It has been a long road, and I'm in my 40's now. There have been refinements of various types in the organization of Jehovah's Witnesses over the past number of years, and it is resulting in a better way of handling many matters in the congregation. This is of benefit for persons like ourselves who may have strayed from the Christian way, and the way of handling things when I was young and having trouble is considerably different today. My wife and I were talking about it just yesterday.--Natural (talk) 16:55, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Procedure on nominating a page for deletion LTSally Page

This won't go anywhere as you haven't read the instructions and followed the process. And again, it was uncourteous of you not to notify LTSally as per the directions: Please consider notifying the author(s) by placing {{subst:MFDWarning|User:LTSally}} ~~~~ on their talk page(s). --NeilN 17:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I see that you have now. Thank you. But you still need to finish the MFD process. --NeilN 17:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I placed the MFD tag on LTSally's Talk page. I think there is one more step involved. If you happen to know to guide me to the next step? Thanks. --Natural (talk) 18:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Yep, you're right. Go here and type {{subst:mfd3|pg=User:LTSally}} --NeilN 18:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I took the liberty of posting your ocmment on why it should be deleted to the MFD page. It still shows on LTSallys page too. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

So, then, I shouldn't do the instructions that are mentioned by Neil above? You did already? --Natural (talk) 18:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

You still need to do them. Hell In A Bucket took care of another step for you. --NeilN 18:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

And another editor took care of the last step. --NeilN 19:07, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, Hell In A Bucket and I helped with the procedure; you don't need to do much more besides wait to see what the community, and LTSally, decides. Just so you know, the steps to WP:MFD are detailed on that page, starting at Misplaced Pages:MFD#How to list pages for deletion. ...but what do you think? ~BFizz 22:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, those of us involved in this particular mfd should also try to comment on other unrelated mfds, since we naturally hope that others will comment on this one. ...but what do you think? ~BFizz 23:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

This is a courtesy note before I take formal action against you that I have lodged a request for investigation of possible sock puppetry. The case is at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Naturalpsychology. Either through ineptitude or an attempt at deception, I believe you are using an IP address, User:69.116.69.75, to add edits in support of your statements at Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses. This is classified in Misplaced Pages as sock puppetry and because it is deceptive, is strictly forbidden. An edit made here under the IP address contained an incompelete sentence. Minutes later you completed the edit under your Naturalpsychology username. Further unsigned comments were added from that IP address here, here and here. I have left a message at the talk page of User talk:69.116.69.75 asking whether this is a sock puppet account. There was no response and further edits from that IP address were made after that message. I pointed out on the JW talk page that the IP address was located in Newark, NJ, which is where you say you live. The second-last edit fron the IP address removed the reference to Newark.

Your earlier edits strongly suggest that you are using both accounts, with your latest edits apparently trying to cover your tracks. This is a very serious matter that could result in you being blocked from Misplaced Pages. If you are using multiple accounts to edit Misplaced Pages in an attempt to deceive other editors, please stop immediately. You have been asked numerous times to sign in when editing here and also to sign your posts. The defence of inexperience starts to lose any meaning when you continue to ignore those requests and act in a manner that suggests you are trying to bend the system. LTSally (talk) 22:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by this. I have one account, that is, Natural, it used to be Naturalpsychology, but now is Natural. I live in Newark, but don't want the whole world to know. I use one computer and occassionally use a library computer when I come home from work, or a computer in a local store. A few times I failed to sign my edits or my talk page comments, but I tried to go back and sign them. I'll take a look at the ones you mentioned. So, you are saying I'm using two seperate accounts and deliberatly covering my tracts? Why would I be dishonest, when I am a Jehovah's Witnesses, and know what the Bible says about lying. I believe that liars won't inherit God's kingdom. So I try very hard not to lie. So, I'm telling you the truth. I don't know who HellintheBucket is, I wouldn't use a name like that myself, but he seems like a nice guy, and I don't talk to myself. So relax, there's no sockpuppetery. I'm still learning the ropes at Misplaced Pages, I don't quite have the system down yet. I wouldn't know how to do what you are saying if I tried, and the Misplaced Pages system still is a little confusing to me. Sorry if there were any issues, but I'll try to clear them up. Thanks. --Natural (talk) 00:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

A personal appeal

I find the escalation of your rhetoric against me rather bizarre and worrying. In the last week or so you have begun heaping invective on me at every opportunity, including at an admin noticeboard dealing with the completely unrelated issue of your behaviour in editing under a multiplicity of guises. In just the last day or two you have made the following accusations:

• My aim is to put negative propaganda on JW articles and discredit the religion by making them look like extremists.
• I am promoting apostate literature.
• I am hiding from elders in my former congregation.
• I am being "purposely blunt" with my edits.
• I am "very aggressive".
• My edits are making things "a little scary".
• I am spying on your computer.

None of those things are true. I am editing articles relating to the religion and doing my best to ensure that everything there is factual, neutral and drawn from reliable published sources. I’m curious to see just which of my edits you believe were made with the intention of demonising your religion.

You and I clearly have a difference in perception. You have claimed the JW article has a negative slant against Witnesses and you particularly cited the opening five paragraphs as being dominated by controversial and negative aspects. I have pointed out to you that in those five paragraphs there are references to just three aspects about the religion that have drawn criticism. The rest of the article is similarly balanced and accurate.

The fact that you read a lengthy article explaining the beliefs, practices and history of the religion and see only negativity is one thing. That’s your problem. But when you start to claim that I am aggressive and making you scared, this becomes a serious allegation about my behaviour here. It seriously impugns my reputation and becomes a wider issue that may need third-party intervention.

You have made a complaint about the content of my user page and that's your right. You have stated your view about it – repeatedly and on an increasing number of platforms within Misplaced Pages. I have stated my case and I will accept the decision of the Misplaced Pages community when it’s made in the next week or so.

In the meantime I want you to cease maligning me on this website. Deal with articles and stop focusing on personalities, Stop these slurs and wild exaggerations. Misplaced Pages has a firm policy against making personal attacks. I want you to set aside your hatred of me and deal with me as another Misplaced Pages editor. In one of your recent messages you appealed for peace and a truce. Please live up to that. LTSally (talk) 10:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll give you assurance that I don't have hatred for you. I feel that you are misguided in opposing Jehovah's Witnesses, and that you need to be more balanced about it.

also, I've prayed for you a number of times.

Jehovah's Witnesses aren't perfect as individuals or organizationally, by, as a whole, they are true Christians, even if they haven't been perfect in their doctrine in history. Also, the better advice for you as far as opposing Jehovah's Witnesses, is what it states in the Bible concerning the Apostles,

"I say to YOU, Do not meddle with these men, but let them alone; (because, if this scheme or this work is from men, it will be overthrown; 39 but if it is from God, YOU will not be able to overthrow them;) otherwise, YOU may perhaps be found fighters actually against God.”

You might actually find yourself fighting against God. That is a serious thing. It is better to be cautious and not fight against a Christian religion even if you might not agree fully with it.--Natural (talk) 23:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages doesn't care if an editor is "fighting against God". Misplaced Pages cares that its rules are followed. If criticism of an editor pertains to WP rules, the criticism belongs here. Otherwise, it doesn't. --AuthorityTam (talk) 06:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I have to say I had a good laugh at "the better advice for you as far as opposing Jehovah's Witnesses, is what it states in the Bible concerning the Apostles ... You might actually find yourself fighting against God." That's right, it's ok when JWs say all other religions, including all the other Christian ones, are false and controlled by Satan, but one must "exercise caution" when discussing JWs, because then you might be "fighting against god".--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

IMHO, it would be a remarkably cynical religion that didn't believe itself to serve God.
A religion might view its detractors as detractors of God, and the religion and its adherents have every right to use a wide range of forums to convince others that this is so.
Misplaced Pages is not such a forum. That's my only point. --AuthorityTam (talk) 21:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm at a loss as to why you would go and misspell 'February' in my previous edit. But aside from that, no one said that members of a religion shouldn't believe their religion to be true, but that's not quite the same thing as empty 'threats' about 'fighting against god', or insisting that their beliefs are facts.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

My assurances to the WP community that I have no contentions with February or its proper spelling. I see that my edit did remove a character from the edit prior to mine, but I don't recall doing so and thus I conclude that I did so unintentionally. I'd hope it's obvious that nothing untoward was intended, and I apologize for my "foot in mouse" error (and subsequent awful punnery). Please excuse the distraction.
Per the thread: While this is plainly not the forum for a lengthy discussion on the matter, allow me to clarify that I actually do believe that most developed countries celebrate the right to free speech. Listeners draw their own conclusions, or avoid speech they dislike. Speakers (such as a religion's adherents) typically do have the right to evangelize their beliefs as truthful (that is, as "facts") in a wide range of forums. I simply observed that WP is not such a forum.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 15:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Policies

When you need help understanding policies swing by. I'll try to explain what's happening or why. There is a lot of policies here and it's easy to violate them, otherwise welcome to the pedia. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much.--Natural (talk) 22:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Protection

Anytime a page is vandalised severely we have the ability to ask for page protection. It is important to point out though, unless the vandalism is extreme articles aren't protected for long lengths of time. I personally agree that on some of the more disputable articles it should be autoconfirmed users, however Wiki has a core policy of open editing so entirely cutting that off is not likely. Review WP:PP it has the guidelines we use to determine which we can protect and how long. Also just a suggestion and in no way a criticism, read this too WP:TLDR, some of your comments have been pretty long and a lot of editors won't even read them. as far as Hiab, lots of people use that, or you can use Jake. whatever you're more comfortable with. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 22:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips--Natural (talk) 22:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

It's fine to ask another editor for advice regarding page protection, but you can also do it (the request, not the protection) yourself. To ask for protection on a specific page, please follow the instructions here. Regards, Tonywalton  01:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the idea--Natural (talk) 22:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Didn't mean to be rude.

Sorry I missed your comments from the 15th. I work with At&t in Customer care. I do like art, I doodle and work abstract art at work, takes away some of the stress sometimes when people are screaming at me about their phone service. I will come back when I can post a poem here, hate accessing email from work. Hit me up with the book link. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to take so long, preoccupied with the editing and a million other things of life. Trying to do some art this weekend, would like to break into portraits and have a friend staying with us who is pushing me onward.

This is the book, Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain by Betty Edwards. The old version is out there for a few pennies, this is the new version on Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/New-Drawing-Right-Side-Brain/dp/0874774195/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1264194841&sr=8-1 It's worth getting if you want to develop your skills. Great exercises.

Keep in touch. This is my email if you ever want to "chat" teacas@gmail.com Ciao.Natural (talk) 21:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)Natural

Talkback

Hell In A Bucket (talk) 01:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Silent Lambs article AfD tag added

AfD tag = Article for Deletion

If you wish to copy your comments from here please do so. Andy5421 (talk) 09:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Removal of criticism

You have removed properly sourced criticisms of Jehovah's Witnesses, entered under the "criticisms" section, claiming they are "biased". Why? The statements are criticisms. They are balanced with a response and rebuttal by Watch Tower literature. Your intent appears to be the removal of all criticism, which suggests you are trying to turn the JW article into a one-sided promotion of the religion. I will continue to counter such efforts by you, just as I would counter the efforts of any editor who removed all statements complimentary of the religion. LTSally (talk) 09:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't remove the criticism, with the exception of one sentence. The criticisms that you have placed and kept, are one-sided, clearly. I placed in information that balanced out the criticims, that are left undefended on the Misplaced Pages page. My intention now is to place a posting on the appropriate Misplaced Pages page of bias in editing by LTSally, I'll post this also. I feel that your editing at the present time violates the NPOV policy of Misplaced Pages, and I don't have the continued energy to wrangle over each and every small edit, seeing, how all the balancing points on the criticisms page were removed by you. I did not remove all statements, rather, I added references which balanced out the criticisms, I removed only one line. Is Misplaced Pages a forum to criticize others religions that you disagree with, and not allow opportunity to present the other side of the issue? Only criticisms are allowed, with no opportunity for defense? No, your editing is sharply biased with a strong anti-Jehovah's Witness POV. I'm going to post a complaint now, and will give the page, as soon as I can find it. I'll post this on your talk page, and on the discussion page also. Thank you.Natural (talk) 12:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)Natural

You are wrong in claiming the criticisms are one-sided. Under social criticisms, paragraph 1 has a claim and a rebuttal. Paragraph 2 has a claim and a rebuttal that misrepresents the view of a sociologist. If you cannot provide a page number that backs up the statements you added, I will remove it and that claim will remain without a rebuttal. Perhaps there is none to make. Paragraph three presents the WT view of the obligation for JWs to preach and an opposing view. Paragraph 4 contains a criticism about Witnesses being coerced to refuse tranfusions and a dubious rebuttal you added that says Witnesses are free to choose whether to accept or reject transfusions. I have requested a citation for that claim. If you don't provide one that too will be removed. LTSally (talk) 23:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I feel the arguments you allow are the strong references against JW. the rebuttals you allow are weak responses, basically saying, JW deny it. So, the references I'd put in in defense and clarifying the position of JW have all been removed for no reason, other than, the purpose or this editing, is to make JW look extreme and to stick as thoroughly as possible to apostate references. When I make an addition to clarify, it is always edited out. So, yes there are some weak rebuttals, that you are permitting, but the majority of what I've put in from the Watchtower on the suheading, Social Criticisms in particular, has been edited out, for no reason.

These statements:

Watch Tower publications instruct members to demonstrate loyalty to God by being loyal and obedient to the organization, promising the benefits of strength and protection from Satan's temptations. Frequent calls for loyalty, and the practice of shunning dissident members, have led critics to refer to the religion's leadership as autocratic.

The rebuttal I placed was edited out, along with the balancing references.

You have a specific point of view, or you along with other editors, and that's the view you want it to stay. If anyone changes it, you edit, or someone, edits it out. In other words, your purpose in the editing of this article is to make JW seem to be dictatorial and autocratic, unfeeling, systematic. When I've include balancing statements without removing these statements, as they are, they are edited out, always, in this article. That is why this article still has a very strong bias. It's trying to make JW look extreme. JW are much more balanced than the picture that is being made in the Wiki article, both in practice, and in their writing. --Natural (talk) 23:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

You have the same bias Natural....You are just at the other side. You have to fight a fight like this with policy. If the views can be backed up there's little LT or anyone can say. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 23:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

This is the difference. I am allowing the apostate things to be up there, and also, the criticisms, but if the cricitisms and accusations are going to be there, then they have to be allowed to be defended. Each time I do that, Sally or others take them off. JEFF, there, he put some back up, but they won't allow me to defend the issue or present the counterpoint to it. So, it's resulting in a negative article with an apostate flavor, rather than a balanced one. I put a lot of work into adding references and so on, and then each time, they get edited out, usually by the same editor, either at that same time, or they wait until the lock comes off, or the bias flag comes off, and the take it out, hope it is not noticed. It's too much work to do editing, and then have it all taken out at whim. --Natural (talk) 00:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

To ensure your edits remain, use sources only to support statements they are saying rather than what you are saying. You are adding too much material that is your own opinion. Your recent edits on social criticisms have added claims that, until you provide specific pages that prove they are in the source material, appear to be your own opinions. These are, specifically, Holden's "rejection" of claims that the WTS employs a form of mind control through isolating its members from criticism, and that the WTS allows JWs to decide for themselves whether they wish to accept blood transfusions. I have raised these issues with you already, but so far you have done nothing to address the issues. And congratulations for "allowing" "apostate things" to remain in the article. They are called criticisms, and they are correctly located in a section called Criticisms. LTSally (talk) 04:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

1.I had specific pages for the references on Holden, and they were removed. The major issue is in social criticisms, the specific references with pages concerning clariications on these senteneces:

Watch Tower publications instruct members to demonstrate loyalty to God by being loyal and obedient to the organization, promising the benefits of strength and protection from Satan's temptations. Frequent calls for loyalty, and the practice of shunning dissident members, have led critics to refer to the religion's leadership as autocratic.

were removed. The way the text is now is very biased without NPOV or opportunity for defense against accusations made by apostates.

The clarifications and references on this paragraph which were put in were also all removed.

Watch Tower literature warns that "independent thinking", such as questioning the counsel it provides, is dangerous. The Watch Tower Society instructs members to not read criticism of the organization by apostates, or former members, or literature published by other religions. This has led some critics to accuse the society of causing mental isolation with the intent of mind control. Sociologist Andrew Holden, who has studied Jehovah's Witnesses, rejects the idea of "mind control," stating that becoming one of Jehovah's Witnesses is an act of free will, and that most whom he interviewed felt an increased measure of personal well being and happiness in their association with the religion.

Watch Tower publications say that the preaching work is "a fundamental requirement of their faith", and an obligation for Jehovah's Witnesses. Raymond Franz and others describe the Watch Tower Society's

Those are the major issues. There are some other major issues with the article also.--Natural (talk) 10:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you're saying. You have copied some paragraphs from the article, but I don't know what you're saying has happened with them. Can you provide the diffs here, or failing that, identify what date you added those references? In the interests of harmony, cooperation and communication I'm happy to look back to see what you wrote and, if it was me who removed your edits, discuss those points. In the meantime, do you have a Watchtower reference that shows that the acceptance of blood transfusions is a matter of personal decision for Witnesses? This is quite startling news to me and I'm interested to see where you got that information. Thanks. LTSally (talk) 10:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, will give attention to it.--Natural (talk) 00:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

It has been very slow work, but I've made a small improvement to the NPOV of the Criticism section. Downstrike (talk) 02:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Haven't seen you in a minute.

How are you scott, haven't seen you editing in a while. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

J..... I haven't been editing the past few months. I was getting too irritated with the one other editor who was so firmly opposed, so I thought it best to take a break and get some perspective. Now I feel a little better and will try to do some balanced editing, if Jehovah wills. Natural (talk) 22:38, 16 May 2010 (UTC)Natural

Good to see you back Scott! Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi

I just came by the jehovah's witnesses talk page and read your comments - I agree with you completely in your assertions that the article needs to base itself of scholarly sources rather than the apostate or JW sources. In fact I argued the same point at some length six months ago Talk:Jehovah's_Witnesses/archive_42#My_two_cents_and_a_half. In the end I was fairly disenchanted with the editing environment and decided to leave the discussion - but I am happy to see you taking it up again. Good luck!·Maunus·ƛ· 09:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. It's May now, am going to try to do some balanced and real editing that upgrades the quality of the Misplaced Pages main Jehovah's Witness article and cleans up some others if it is possible. Any positive support is encouraging. Thanks. Natural (talk) 22:39, 16 May 2010 (UTC)Natural

Editing marathon

I can see you've been very busy! However there may be some need for a little moderation. You made 22 edits over the space of two hours, some of which were helpful and some of which were not (introduction of repetition, altering statements made in cited sources, wrong interpretation). Please remember that this is a collaborative effort and it places a big demand on other editors to pore over all those edits to review your changes (and mine). One might be accused of trying to get one's changes on to the page through a process of exhausting other editors. It would be more courteous to take your time with these edits, to allow the normal discussion and editing process to take place. Misplaced Pages:There is no deadline is a good page to read. Thank you. BlackCab (talk) 04:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Brevity

Your comments on the talk page of the Jehovah's Witnesses are becoming far too long. Please keep your comments brief and to the point. Talk pages are not the place for venting your views about criticism of your religion. BlackCab (talk) 11:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

You are continuing to misuse article talk pages as a forum for your personal views. See and . Please stop. BlackCab (talk) 22:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Out of curiousity, do you count the time you spend editing and "chatting" at Misplaced Pages on your monthly witnessing report? Do you consider your work at this website as spreading the good news and promoting God's kingdom? BlackCab (talk) 22:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Really that is none of your concern. This is borderline harassment, if it's too long you can link to WP:TLDR Hell In A Bucket (talk) 23:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

It is not harassment. It is a simple question asked in good faith. BlackCab (talk) 00:26, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Have you noticed no one else has come here to express concern about Natural's edits? The problem here is that both people have COI's and the real meter should be the people that don't have that bias. This is a oil and water dispute, nothing he says will appease you much like nothing you say will appease him. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:43, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that some of the user's posts have been unnecessarily long and sermonish. I disagree with BlackCab's suggestion of 'counting time', though it seems this was asked out of frustration of continued lengthy posts rather than an initial insinuation.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:14, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The point of brevity is noted. I wrote from the heart, responding to Jeffro's comments. Natural (talk) 10:15, 23 May 2010 (UTC)Natural

Removal of sourced facts without discussion

You are continuing to remove sourced factual material from the Jehovah's Witnesses article without discussion and persistently reverting the article when this is restored. The issue of the expectations for 1975 has been discussed at the talk page and four separate citations were supplied at Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses#Selling homes in 1975. Please stop your disruptive editing now. BlackCab (talk) 11:26, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

We had since discussed and agreed on this point. This was the quote from BlackCab's discussion on the point of selling homes and 1975- "Will you delete the line or shall I?" BlackCab (talk) 12:38, 21 May 2010 Natural (talk) 11:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)Natural

The discussion was not about that. In Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses#Commendation for Witnesses who sell their homes for benefit of the Watch Tower Society I was discussing the line added by another editor that reads "though Witness publications since then have also commended Witnesses who've sold homes and preached in "the short time remaining". At the close of that discussion I wrote, "Those citations provide no support at all for the claim that Witness publications since 1975 "have also commended Witnesses ..." BlackCab (talk) 12:25, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize exactly what you were referring to. Natural (talk) 20:04, 23 May 2010 (UTC)Natural

Undo Edits.

Go to the history page. It should show each edit made and next toi it should be a blue link that says undo. make sure to leave a edit summary. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, will try to do that.Natural (talk) 17:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)Natural

Editing marathon (Part 2)

I have previously raised with you the problem of making so many edits in one hit. You have just made a sequence of 16 edits to the Jehovah's Witnesses article, which is excessive. Many of these edits are substantial and many of them are changes that are likely to be contentious. I have found a number of errors among them that need to be fixed. It is unhelpful, and possibly disruptive, to make so many changes in one short period of time because it obviously makes it difficult for other editors to note the changes and discuss, challenge or revert them. I have reverted the whole sequence and suggest you do these in a much more measured fashion. BlackCab (talk) 21:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Will do, point, though, a number of times, it's the same edit, I'm just adjusting it. But will do it as you said it above. Natural (talk) 01:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)Natural

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages 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. --SineBot (talk) 01:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I had signed the bottom, but didn't realize that you should side those middle comments also. I wasn't sure about that, but now know. Natural (talk) 20:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)Natural

Talkback

Suppression

On June 4 you wrote the following message on my talk page: "Sorry about being a little combative in this editing process. I apologize and will try to be more Christlike in my dealings here. It is a little frustrating this process. Again, I'm sorry about that and am going to try to change my style of communication with you. Matthew 5:45-48."

Today at Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard you claimed: "The goal of BlackCab has always been to suppress anything positive about JW and to present apostate views, from former JW, and from any negative statement that is made about JW. To keep off of the Misplaced Pages main page, any counterpoints to the criticisms that he has personally interjected into the article."

Shame on you, Scott, for such a blatant lie. I have helped build many JW-related articles and have included much material that is complimentary of the religion. You have maligned me with a complete lack of respect for truth. The only person attempting to suppress facts on the pages is you. BlackCab (talk) 10:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

BlackCab, I've seen how you edit. You put in something complimentary so that you can have a better point from which to interject apostate views and criticism. Anything complimentary is to hide your true motive which is to discredit Jehovah's Witnesses and present your personal complaints based on apostate books. Shame on you for being a traitor to true Christianity and using your interior knowledge about Jehovah's Witnesses in a way that Judas used his knowledge to betray Jesus Christ. Shame on you. There is nothing worse than a person can do than to be a traitor. If there is a better way to worship, what is it? If your goal is only to spread negative things about Jehovah's Witnesses, then shame on you, at the same time, hiding it from the congregation, shame on you.Natural (talk) 11:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)Natural