User talk:Mormonfaith101

Welcome

Hello, Mormonfaith101, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Ian.thomson (talk) 00:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A summary of site guidelines and policies you may find useful

Always cite a source for any new information. When adding this information to articles, using <ref>reference tags like this</ref>, containing the name of the source, the author, page number, publisher or web address (if applicable).
"Truth" is not the criteria for inclusion, verifiability is.
We do not publish original thought nor original research.
Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. Real scholarship actually does not say what understanding of the world is "true," but only with what there is evidence for. In the case of science, this evidence must ultimately start with physical evidence. In the case of religion, this means only reporting what has been written and not taking any stance on doctrine. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Jeremy Adams for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jeremy Adams is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeremy Adams until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've tidied the text a bit, and in particular, I've formatted one of the references to show you how it's done; the Google Books would benefit greatly from being made more intelligible. That said, I think there is still an issue about whether this guy is really notable at any thing other than a family level. I'm willing to be convinced, but I think he still needs a bit more to cross the line, preferably with less obscure references Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:51, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

February 2012

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, such as on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeremy Adams, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or 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 they said it. Thank you. Safiel (talk) 01:44, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, when leaving comments on Article for Deletion pages, don't break your comment up into paragraphs. Rather, just use a single paragraph and lead with an asterisk symbol, which keeps the formatting standardized on the page. Thanks. Safiel (talk) 01:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of World Government (Mormonism)

The article World Government (Mormonism) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Improper sourcing, notability of topic not established, and just wrong on so many other levels. Not enough context to justify the claims.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Dennis Brown (talk) 01:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributed article, Henry Adams, Braintree

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, Henry Adams, Braintree. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as yourself. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - Henry Adams (Braintree). Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Henry Adams (Braintree) - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Nat Gertler (talk) 01:37, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributed article, World Government (Mormonism)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, World Government (Mormonism). First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as yourself. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - Council of Fifty. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Council of Fifty - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 01:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removing Speedy at World Government (Mormonism)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for taking the time to contribute.

I'm a bot designed by another Wikipedia editor, and I'm here to help you with our deletion process. I noticed that while working on an article recently, you removed a speedy deletion template that tagged it for deletion. Don't get discouraged! Deletion discussions happen on Wikipedia all the time.

If you don't want the article to get deleted, please click here.

The link will take you to the talk page, where you can explain why the article should be kept. If you have any questions about this or need help with editing, you can ask at the Help desk.

We really hope you'll stick around to help make Wikipedia better! Thank you, - SDPatrolBot (talk) 03:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Help request

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Do you have a question? Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 04:08, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removing Speedy at World Government (Mormonism)

Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself, as you did with World Government (Mormonism). If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Click here to contest this speedy deletion, which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. - SDPatrolBot (talk) 03:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Touching bases

Hey there! I just wanted to touch bases. I noticed that you recreated a deleted article. Actions like this may actually result in salting the topic, which keeps the article from ever being created. Some editors even get blocked. Nobody wants that. I also noticed that you created Friend of God and Council of Friends. Neither article meets the criteria for an encyclopedia. Essentially, the Friend of God article should be deleted in accordance with the WP:A10 criteria for speedy deletion, because it merely presents information about Jethro, who is already covered in the Jethro (Bible) article. The Council of Friends article fails to indicate how or why this group of people are significant and/or important, so it would be deleted in accordance with the WP:A7 criteria for speedy deletion. It is really important to create drafts of these articles first. For example: User:Mormonfaith101/Friend of God and User:Mormonfaith101/Council of Friends. ← Just click on those links and create your article there, then ask for feedback before moving to the mainspace. I would recommend moving the created articles to your subpage. Based on your expressed interest in creating and editing articles focusing on the LDS Church, it is essential that you review the Manual of Style specific for Latter Day Saints. The Wikipedia Manual of Style may be found here. Again, if you have questions, please contact me. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 05:38, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your feedback

If you're talking about Henry Adams, Braintree, it was removed because there is a current article on that person (Henry Adams (Braintree)). It wouldn't matter who put the speedy tag if the articles meet Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. Wikipedia:Writing better articles and seeing if there are current articles on that person before starting the article may help. If you have any questions, please ask me on my talkpage here.

SwisterTwister talk 03:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Only administrators and oversighters can remove articles. Other users such as myself can tag them if again, they meet the criteria. You can appeal the deletion by clicking "Click to contest this deletion" located with the warning.

Usually you will be warned from the user(s) who tagged the article, but you can also ask the administrator(s) that removed the article. I would be willing to answer any other questions. SwisterTwister talk 03:23, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can message me on whichever talkpage you wish. If you message me here, I will have your talkpage on my watchlist (see Help:Watching pages). SwisterTwister talk 03:32, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. 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. You could also click on the signature button or 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 they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 03:29, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

Mormonfaith101 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

69.204.150.47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Digiswitch". The reason given for Digiswitch's block is: "Making legal threats: and also unacceptable personal attacks".

Blocking administrator: Materialscientist (talk • blocks)

Decline reason: It is perfectly clear that Digiswitch was not editing independently of you, but was editing with you or following you. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:03, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple users on this computer. Why was my account blocked too?Mormonfaith101 (talk) 07:37, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Mormonfaith101 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

i have provided a reason for the request to unblock, there are multiple users of this computer - this is my account 'mormonfaith101', i have not been given notice, that i have violated any wikipedia rule.... Mormonfaith101 (talk) 07:50, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Wrong unblock template, as this account is not blocked per se: see declined autoblock request above. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:03, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

In response to your feedback

There are certain reasons why pages are tagged.

Abigail was here :D _{Talk to Me.} _{Email Me.} 01:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for sockpuppetry. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 15:16, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am a new Wikipedia Editor. For the most part, I have enjoyed my time contributing to the site. However, I do have very strong concerns, that the ability of another Editor, using the same public computer I work on ('Digiswitch'), who is in vehement disagreement with my views, can work together with a single administrator ('Materialscientist') - and block my access so easily.... Perhaps this is the real haven of vandals!!!

If one person chews gum (Digiswitch), does the whole class have to stay in for recess Materialscientist?

The notion that a single Administrator can block an Editor - for actions taken by yet another Editor, at the same ip address - strikes as: arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of discretion! And, to be required to appeal back to the same Administrator again - to 'remove the block', is certainly a disjointed turn in the pursuit of just outcomes. Giving the power -- to in effect -- put a 'Sock' in my mouth, with a simple accusation of 'Sockpuppetry' is comical and may explain in part the state of the decaying world we now find ourselves in.

When will humanity get it: "It's the concentration of power - dummy".

The factual encyclopedic article I had hope to contribute to the Wikipedia project ('World Government (Mormonism)), would be - of course - a highly charged one, considering the current state within the American political climate. The article has now been totally and completely vandalized (erased), as a result of my being blocked, and now I have no means - to repair the breach. The factual truths contained in the hidden agenda of Mormonism, is now been 'blocked' from the nameless masses. The entire downfall of our very civilization may be at stake!

A better Wikipedia workflow solution, in the pursuit of ultimate justice, would be to move a block appeal request (from an editor who should have been presumed innocent) to a separate three member panel of administrators, for an independent view and vote, regarding a claimed unproven abuse.

Isaiah 59:4-14: No one calls for justice; no one pleads his case with integrity. They rely on empty arguments and speak lies; they conceive trouble and give birth to evil.

A couple of days ago, I petitioned that the block on me: 'Mormonfaith101' be removed, because of the indiscretions of another wholly independent Editor: 'Digiswitch'. Must I wait out my probation, while the world suffers in ignorance? Also, may I take my tongue out of my cheek now? (:/)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Mormonfaith101 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The first person to block my account: User:HelloAnnyong, indicated that he/she had a conflict of interest in blocking this account, because "[he] marked an article Mormonfaith101 wrote for AFD". All other administrators reviewing my request to be unblocked - have simply followed suit. I tried to explain the situation (see above for explanation) - in a light hearted - and yet factual - way, and am still being blocked by other administrators following User:HelloAnnyong biased lead. I am not User:Digiswitch. I live in a four plex where all of us share the same internet connection. My name is Jacob Anderson, Digiswitch is Peter Wolfsen. I should not be responsible for his acts. I would like to contribute to the Wikipedia project. I am hoping that there is at least one any fair administrator out there that will judge my case, and unblock this account. What are my other options?

Decline reason:

HelloAnnyong didn't block your account. He merely brought you to the attention of our sockpuppet investigations page. We have no way of knowing whether or not you are or aren't the same person editing under that account, see WP:BROTHER. If we assume that you're telling the truth, you obviously knew what Peter was doing and didn't do anything about it, so you were complicit in that behavior. I see no reason to unblock you. -- Atama頭 22:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Mormonfaith101 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

in the preceding response to my appeal to be unblocked 頭 indicated that in the original complaint against me, made by: User:HelloAnnyong, HelloAnnyong: "...He merely brought you to the attention..."; when in fact, it was User:HelloAnnyong, that instigated this entire battle against me.

At: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators#Involved_admins -- it clearly states the problem of biased Administrators acting against editors in the: "conflict of interest" policy. Additionally, in the preceding response to my appeal Atama also leads me to: WP:BROTHER -- an nonsense comical page -- (perhaps in an effort to rub salt into my wounds....)

Also, he implies that I use 'police powers', to stop the actions of another user 'Digiswitch', otherwise, I must be "complicit" in the actions of 'Digiswitch'.

Also, 04:57, 6 February 2012 Timotheus Canens changed my block settings expiry time to: 'indefinite', while the original block was supposed to expire in 72 hours.

From the page: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:What_adminship_is_not Admins do not have "command authority"... and, they do not "decide what people see". Some of the pages I created, are now being trampled upon, by untruthful members of the 'Mormon Mafia' (just kidding with that name, but trying to make a point none-the-less). Including: World Government (Mormonism); Council of Friends. All of the edits I have contributed are valid - with reliable secondary sources. I am concerned that I may be being blocked, because of my effort to bring to light the dangers of the theology of Mormonism.

Again, I am still hope to find a single - fair minded Administrator - willing to look again at my case, with a fresh perspective and new eyes; therefore, I humbly again submit this reasonable appeal request.

Mormonfaith101 (talk) 06:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Stop wikilawyering. Stop blaming others. Discuss your own behaviour. HelloAnnyong's involvement means that they can't block you themselves, not that they can't report you to other admins, period. I've also disabled {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}} - you're not blocked as part of AE, you're dlocked for disruption, legal threats and sockpuppetry. The only realistic way for you to get unblocked is WP:Standard offer. Max Semenik (talk) 07:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Nomination of World Government (Mormonism) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article World Government (Mormonism) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Government (Mormonism) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 06:17, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]