Pastorbodhi1
|
Pastorbodhi1, you are invited to the Teahouse
edit
|
Hi Pastorbodhi1! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts |
Speedy deletion nomination of Universal Life Church World Headquarters
edit
A tag has been placed on Universal Life Church World Headquarters requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can 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 a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent 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. Me-123567-Me (talk) 21:27, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Universal life church world headquarters
edit You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.
Thank you.
A tag has been placed on Universal life church world headquarters, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising that only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an acceptable page. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item G11, as well as the guidelines on spam.
If you can indicate why the subject of this page is not blatant advertising, 
. Clicking that button 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. You may freely add information to the page that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from independent reliable sources to ensure that the page will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. SwisterTwister talk 03:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Nomination of Universal life church world headquarters for deletion
edit
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Universal life church world headquarters 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/Universal life church world headquarters 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 template from the top of the article. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 14:44, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
August 2012
edit
Hello, I'm C.Fred. This might not have been intentional, but I noticed that you recently removed some content from Universal Life Church without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, —C.Fred (talk) 00:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Conflict of interest
edit Hello, Pastorbodhi1. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Universal life church world headquarters, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.
All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.
If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:
- Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
- Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
- Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
- Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.
Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.
For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. —C.Fred (talk) 03:13, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Universal life church world headquarters
editI notice you're recommending to "Close AFD Without Prejudice" in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Universal life church world headquarters. Effectively, you're recommending to close this discussion as a no consensus and leave the possibility open to renominate the article for deletion in the near future. (When I make "without prejudice" !votes in deletion discussions, I do it to note that I have no objection to a reconsideration of the matter.)
Also, each participant should have only one active recommendation (!vote) in the discussion. Since you had twice recommneded "Close AFD Without Prejudice", I struck through one of the duplicates. —C.Fred (talk) 19:40, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
- Pastorbodhi1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
- 173.22.26.53 (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 "JordanFrancis". The reason given for JordanFrancis's block is: "Block evasion: edits that violate WP:PRIVACY".
Decline reason: Now blocked directly. Max Semenik (talk) 20:30, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 | This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. |
Max Semenik (talk) 20:30, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Pastorbodhi1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Please review again the block on my account. In your consideration, please note that myself, pastorbodhi1, I am a seperate individual than user jordanfrancis - He was directly blocked due to personal violation of WIKI posting policy. I was blocked as a result of his motions in defending the church site. I was the one who initiated the ULCHQ account and am the one who is trying to create an appropriate page which meets guidelines and as you will note made no antagonistic remarks against anyone on the site. Being blocked prevents me from meeting these guidelines. I apologize for the issues here and would appreciate your consideration. Further I was unaware of the singular IP address requirement. Please note that that jordanfrancis is removing himself from the WIKI discussion as he has had noted past issues with other editors.
Decline reason:
I have spent a considerable amount of time considering this request, reading the (very extensive) relevant editing history, and thinking carefully about what you say. It seems quite likely that, as you say, you are a different person from JordanFrancis, and if so then I can feel every sympathy with you if you feel that you have been blocked because of the editing faults of another editor. However, there are other issues. First of all, if you read WP:SOCK you will see that an account that exists only to support another account may be unacceptable even if it is operated by a different person. Secondly, and in my view more importantly, you made statements about how you personally had edited which were clearly inconsistent with how this account has edited. This must mean one of two things: either your statements were inaccurate, or the account is shared by more than one person. However, when you were asked about this, your reply summarily dismissed that question without any serious attempt to address the issue. Your answer, in fact, implies that, if what you say is true, your account has been used by someone else without your knowledge, and apparently without your caring much either. This account is remaining blocked, because at least one, and possibly more than one, of the following applies, any one of them being sufficient to keep the block: the account is a meatpuppet account; and/or your account is compromised, one or more other people having unauthorised access to it without your control; and/or you are using the account dishonestly, deliberately misrepresenting your editing in an attempt to deceive. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:08, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
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.