I noticed some bad advice on your User page about editing guidelines:

• "If you want to do OR, write a book, get it published, then insert it as a reference."

Someone adding a citation for their own publication may be a conflict of interest and should not be encouraged, especially if they are self-published, and this may still constitute original research. Even if the person had their views published by a reputable publisher, it would still be better for an independent editor to add the citation without any suggestion by the author. ;) --Jeffro77 (talk) 00:28, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That was really supposed to be tongue in cheek, but I see the point. Vyselink (talk) 00:36, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well yeah, but I have to maintain my Wikipedia reputation for having no sense of humour.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:44, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Since you participated in the discussion at WT:Wikiproject Doctor Who, you may wish to post at Talk:Doctor#Proposed redirect. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 04:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to insert obvious bias into Wikipedia, as you did at Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses, you may be blocked from editing. 73.11.72.255 (talk) 05:26, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The flaw with your argument is the mistaken belief that I have tried to introduce anything. I have not. I have reverted changes to sourced material that you had yet to discuss on the talk page. I beg you to please bring up an ANI case against me, as it would fail miserably when the history of your interactions with myself, BlackCab, and Jeffro77, including placing Cab and myself on a page of "Known Apostates" (which counter to your claims on other users talk pages IS IN FACT A PERSONAL ATTACK) is instantly revealed. Vyselink (talk) 14:21, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am attempting to make the article clearer and more reflective of current sources, rather than those that are out of date. I felt that BlackCab and you were mindlessly reverting me and trying to preserve text that was not accurate. I am working hard to discuss matters in a collaborative fashion. You may face serious consequences for your behavior. 2601:7:1980:5B5:21C2:E1D6:3861:74AB (talk) 20:35, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem attempting to make great articles. However, you have not attempted any meaningful discussion, and continue to remove sourced, reliable statements for your own POV ones that are either misleading or entirely inaccurate. Your latest revert of the sourced material belies your protestations of attempts at a neutral productive discussion. Vyselink (talk) 20:40, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]