User talk:Jayman85

Welcome!

Hello, Jayman85, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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) 17:38, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May 2014

Hello, I'm Ian.thomson. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Archaeology and the Book of Mormon seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:38, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove information from articles, as you did to Archaeology and the Book of Mormon. Wikipedia is not censored, and content is not removed on the sole grounds of perceived offensiveness. Please discuss this issue on the article's talk page to reach consensus rather than continuing to remove the disputed material. If the content in question involves images, you also have the option to configure Wikipedia to hide the images that you may find offensive. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:39, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you may be blocked from editing. 75 * 17:45, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not vandalizing!

Too all of you that insist on retaining a biased verbiage in the Archaeology and the Book of Mormon article, just leave me be. The article violates the very policies you accuse me of with the tone and derogatory reference to any dissenting opinion or study. No one knows everything that occurred in the history of our world. You cannot refute something based on no evidence for or against. No data discovered during the time frame means... no data!

Jayman85 (talk) 18:16, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Archaeology and the Book of Mormon

"Current records indicate" is considered WP:WEASEL. Unless you have wp:reliable sources indicating otherwise, that phrase should not be added. Jim1138 (talk) 17:45, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Archaeology and the Book of Mormon. Jim1138 (talk) 17:45, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A summary of site guidelines and policies you need to study

"Truth" is not the criteria for inclusion, verifiability is.
Always cite a source for any new information. When adding this information to articles, use <ref>reference tags like this</ref>, containing the name of the source, the author, page number, publisher or web address (if applicable).
We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology.
Wikipedia is not a general discussion forum, additions to talk pages should be about improving the article within the guidelines, not voicing one's opinion on the subject matter.
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.

In other words, apologetic claims attempting to cover historical discrepancies by Mormon apologists who are not accredited archaeologists or historians will be described as such, not as equally valid claims. As the only (sane) people trying to defend the historicity of the Book of Mormon are followers of Joseph Smith, it is dishonest to try to present their claims as some secular and universal observation that sane non-Mormons would ever consider. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:47, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Your recent editing history at Archaeology and the Book of Mormon shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:21, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have reported you to the admins

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:32, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have undone your vandalism of my report. Do not do that again unless you want the admins to see you as just a useless vandal. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:55, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

unblocking

is it ok if you unblock me(jungleewan)? i was blocked unfairly and by the time i complain from the person,i wasblocked already.

respectfully, jungleewan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piachpia (talk • contribs) 20:58, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked for 31 hours for persistent tendentious editing at Archaeology and the Book of Mormon as well as vandalism at WP:ANI. Please compare this ANI section. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.Bishonen | talk 23:27, 1 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]