User talk:74.66.71.134

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Unification Church. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. CIreland (talk) 17:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC).

My edits are based on fact and first hand account. I can add much more based on second hand information that at this time I will withold. The article clearly has been edited to promote the Church. It is a distortion of the truth as is taught by the Church as being acceptable in furthuring the Churchs pursuits.

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to Unification Church, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Camaron | Chris (talk) 17:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] February 2008

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did to Unification Church, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. CIreland (talk) 17:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

I think Wikipedia needs to seriously look at the validity of this article. When minor changes are made base on pure fact they are changed, or erased. Any dient to the Church has been convoluted or deleted. I think this is a perfect case for the NY Times to look at and will have friends there look into this.

You should outline your concerns on the the talk page at Talk:Unification Church; that is its purpose. CIreland (talk) 18:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I will try that, but it seems hopeless in the face of an overwhelming amount of Church editors making use of this article to their benefit. My sister-in-law in Japan has ruined her life and her families life by giving away all their money to the Unification Church. She has been told to lie in order to get money from friends and family. This has been going on for over ten years. I even discussed with Unification Church senior people in the US who agreed their is a problem with how they get money from Japan. The Article seems to forget basic historic facts and totally ignores the serious first hand issues that people have had.

I have not been disruptive to innocents around the world who may need this information. I am keeping a totally neutral point of view. I have not said anything derogative or tried to debunk any of the tenants of the religion. It is highly obvious that the article has been edited by Unification Church members to promote a highly positive history. It deletes most critical history unless it has a way to prove wrong this history. I didn't even see mention of Moons imprisement in the US for tax evasion? My comments earlier were more subtle and based on pue fact, like that Moon is said to be the Messiah. This they actually kept. They are not allowing any discussion of the corruption in Japan. Earlier there was mention of a court case in japan finding corruption in fundraising. no other details given. I expanded on that based on first hand experience. Then my comments and the entire issue of Japan was deleted. Now who here is breaching "Nuetrality point of view" ???

[edit] Your recent edits

Hi there. 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. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button Image:Signature_icon.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name 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) 18:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)