Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to The Fellowship (Christian organization), did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot.

• Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
• Cluebot produces very few false positives, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been detected as unconstructive, please report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• The following is the log entry regarding this warning: The Fellowship (Christian organization) was changed by Ivananderson (u) (t) deleting 80040 characters on 2010-01-11T23:59:21+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 23:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ivananderson,

A lot of your edits refer to a book by Norman Grubb called Modern Viking: The Story of Abraham Vereide, Pioneer in Christian Leadership. ASIN B0027DLVS8

Do you know whether this book is available online?

--Kevinkor2 (talk) 02:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC) Hello Kevin,It is available in alibris and on Amazon and in Old book circulation shops. Cordially, Ivan[reply]

Hi Ivananderson,

Your recent change affected a navigation box (navbox) that is used in several articles. I have undone that change.

Perhaps you meant to create a new navbox specifically for Goodwill. If you want help with this, please let me know.

--Kevinkor2 (talk) 13:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ivananderson,

Four of your recent changes[1][2][3][4] affected a navbox that is used in several articles. I have undone those changes.

In their place, I have created a new navbox specifically for Goodwill. This navbox is at ((Goodwill Industries Navbox)).

--Kevinkor2 (talk) 23:28, 21 February 2010 (UTC) Thank you Kevin, Cordially,Ivan[reply]

Please see my post discussing your edits to Abraham Vereide on the article's talk page. I have reverted your most recent addition and have called for all of your edits to be reverted. Please inform whether my assumption is a wrong one or not. __meco (talk) 08:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Meco, I have been doing extensive research on Abraham and have added these gleanings into the page. The information is drawn from his books, papers and the footnotes are so documented. I have asked KevinCor for format assistance as he has such an electronic expertise. The information written is veritable and illuminating as to the influences in the life and motivations of this remarkable innovator of both social and spiritual causes.Cordially, Ivan

This is good. I do notice that you are conforming somewhat poorly to entry layout guidelines and practices. A reason for this could be that no-one ever posted a standard welcome message on your talk page back when you started editing, so I hope you won't mind me posting one just below this section. There are many resource links there that a new user will find useful. __meco (talk) 07:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Meco,Thank you for your helpful information which is assisting me in learning this electronic tabulation format. After a winding search, I discovered the instructions last night on how to make a new paragraph and a footnote, these endeavors had previously not held in place when I tried to make them. Cordially, Ivan Ivananderson (talk) 17:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can also start a new paragraph by putting a blank line between it and the previous paragraph in the edit window (using the Enter key). Then you don't need <p> and </p>. Davemck (talk) 14:22, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not alter direct quotes taken from referenced sources, as you have done in these edits:

• The Fellowship (Christian organization):

edit edit edit edit edit edit

• Abraham Vereide

edit edit edit edit edit

This is a violation of MOS:QUOTE, not to mention basic journalism principles. Davemck (talk) 18:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edit to the page The Fellowship (Christian organization) appears to have added incorrect information and has been reverted or removed. All information in this encyclopedia must be verifiable in a reliable, published source. If you believe the information that you added was correct, please cite the references or sources or before making the changes, discuss them on the article's talk page. Please use the sandbox for any tests that you wish to make. Do take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you. Uncle Dick (talk) 19:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I'm sure you mean well but the edits you are currently building on Douglas Coe are contrary to Wikipedia's policy of neutral point of view. You are moving the article away from a factual account and towards a glorification piece. Pichpich (talk) 18:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to The Fellowship (Christian organization). Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Uncle Dick (talk) 01:41, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did to The Fellowship (Christian organization), you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Uncle Dick (talk) 00:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Abraham Vereide, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Uncle Dick (talk) 00:36, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a short time to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war. 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 would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text ((unblock|your reason here)) below. Elockid ^(Talk) 23:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Look, I don't want to drag you into another edit war but, as I noted above and as others have pointed out, your edits currently do not fall in line with Wikipedia's fundamental principle of neutrality. Please discuss your changes on the relevant talk pages. Pichpich (talk) 12:57, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You really think I'm Mr Sharlett or was that supposed to be subtle sarcasm? I'm not the first editor to warn you about your current edits and the need to stick to a neutral tone and to factual accounts. Pichpich (talk) 12:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What you don't seem to understand is that the main objection to your edits is that they turn articles into hagiographies. Pichpich (talk) 13:04, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any particular opinion on the changes you've been making to The Fellowship. I do think that the article tends to give undue weight to the criticisms leveled in Sharlet's sensationally titled book and that a more balanced analysis of the organization is probably warranted. At the same time, you must have figured out by now that simply adding the same opinions to the article over and over again with bare justification provided in the edit summaries is going to result in a speedy reversion and, perhaps, the revocation of your editing privileges on this article.

Might I humbly suggest that you take some time to explain your views more fully on the article's talk page? If you can provide sufficient reliable sources to justify some of the proposed changes and hash it out a bit with some of the other editors, the results will probably be more satisfying for you than the quixotic revert campaign in which you are engaged. Just some friendly thoughts. Uncle Dick (talk) 22:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]