User talk:Anon166

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome!

Hello, Anon166, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Do not hesitate to make bold edits either: the best thing about Wikipedia is that if you make a mistake, someone else can fix it! That being said, please respect the integrity of articles and do not vandalise them. If you have a question as to what constitutes the difference, please ask on my talk page. It's also a good suggestion to take some time to get to know the Wikipedia policies and guidelines: this will make for a much easier time while editing.

If you ever need help figuring out what to do next on Wikipedia, please let me know, and I'll be more than happy to direct you towards some projects. Again, welcome! ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 23:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate comments at Exmormonism

Your recent comments ([1] and [2]) were an unnecessary personal attack on User:Storm Rider. Based upon your previous acrimonious language on Talk:Exmormonism, you haven't given the impression that you're familiar with the Wikipedia policies on no personal attacks or civility; I suggest that you read over them.

Contributions from all points of view are welcome and necessary at Wikipedia, but you'll find it much easier to participate in a consensual discussion if you assume the good faith of other editors and not accuse them of being cultists. Continuing to attack others can result in administrative actions against your account or IP address. Tijuana Brass^E@ 20:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not as though Storm Rider has his hands clean. According to him, Exmormons are like mental patients in that they undergo regular counseling, and I'm a rebel without a cause whose intellect is not advanced enough to understand the deep things he has to say. [3] [4]. Rather than whine at WP:PAIN, I just stopped talking to him... I suppose I could have ratted him out, but why? Reswobslc 18:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kirtland Safety Society

Please see Talk:Joseph Smith, Jr./Archive 5 for a discussion of Brodie's reliability. Brodie as a source has also been discussed on a number of other articles relating to the Latter Day Saint movement. Best wishes. WBardwin 07:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Something of a personal question

Anon, after noticing your determined stance on the LDS articles here over a period of time, I'm curious about your background. I realize that this is a somewhat personal question, and you're free to decide not to answer, but your involvement in Wikipedia has been... "atypical", in a sense. By that, I'm referring to your exclusive focus on LDS-related articles, coming from a viewpoint that is seemingly against any positive portrayal against the Mormon Church. Of course, personal point of view is (or, better said, should be) irrelevant when authoring an article, so long as the facts are straight, but your tone is often aggressive in nature and has made it difficult to win support or reconciliation from other editors.

In the interest of better understanding your motivation and working out differences between you and the number of Mormon editors here — and keeping in mind that I'm an ex-Mormon myself — what's up? Why the aggressive tone? Why no, for lack of a better term, community involvement?

Thanks in advance for any answer you feel like giving. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa! 07:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but my personal regard for knowledge and reason is not for sale. Just because someone chooses to stand up to groupthink, alone perhaps, doesn't make them wrong in any way. I hail from noble traditions. Anon166 17:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute at anti-Mormon

In order to gain a consensus concerning the issue at anti-Mormon, would you please comment here? --uriah923^(talk) 04:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Christian category delete thread

Sorry about the signature snafu in that discussion (apparently some kind of sloppy mistake on my part), and thank you for your very courteous request for correction. I made the correction. Mamalujo 00:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The mass-deletion of the "Anti-[religion]" categories

Have any of you people been involved with the maintaining/building of these categories before you all decided to come along and delete them all? That doesn't seem to make make sense does it? --Wassermann 04:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the plural method of addressing me, if you don't already know, then why would you assume it? Anon166 16:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:MichelineBernardini.jpg

Hello, Anon166. An automated process has found and will an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that is in your userspace. The image (Image:MichelineBernardini.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Anon166. This image or media will be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. This does not necessarily mean that the image is being deleted, or that the image is being removed from other pages. It is only being removed from the page mentioned above. All mainspace instances of this image will not be affected Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 22:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA reassessment of No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith

I have conducted a review of this article as part of the GA sweeps process. There are some issues which need addressing, which can be found at Talk:No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith/GA1. The article is on hold for seven days, so that these concerns may be addressed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]