User talk:JordanFrancis
July 2012[edit]
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is invited to contribute, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Universal Life Church, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Me-123567-Me (talk) 21:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
In regard to this edit, if you want to have Universal Life Church deleted, you will need to follow all the steps at WP:AFDHOWTO. It looks like you did only Step III. I do think, however, that it is unlikely that the main article about Universal Life Church would be deleted entirely, because the church is reasonably well-known. It would be better to improve the article through normal editing. (I'm not talking about Universal life church world headquarters, which is a separate article.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:44, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
That is exactly the reason I quit, and I've made several entries via the Talk Page for Universal Life Church. I would greatly appreciate your review of both pages (including Universal Life Church World Headquarters) and your review thereof. Much appreciatedJordanFrancis (talk) 16:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- It appears to me that Universal life church world headquarters needs better independent reliable sources. For example, the article from the Honolulu Star Advertiser cited does not appear to mention the ULCHQ, but rather mentions the Universal Life Church based in Modesto, California. Of the ULCHQ's supposedly well known ministers, Lisa Williams the medium is cited only to the same press release published three times on three different web sites; E. Kay Staples, the county clerk, does not qualify as well-known by most definitions and her ordination by ULCHQ is not mentioned in the sources cited; and Max Ryan, the actor, is also not mentioned as having been ordained by ULCHQ in the source cited. Most of the sources cited in the article are just pages on the ULCHQ's web site or affiliated sites, press releases, or pages from social networking web sites. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:04, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Your recent edits[edit]
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) 12:13, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Yes I unfortunately placed the JordanFrancis (talk) 16:06, 1 August 2012 (UTC) in the wrong spot, please forgive me. JordanFrancis (talk) 16:06, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Several of the changes you made to my sandbox draft add information that is not in the cited sources. Please note that an article at Wikipedia should only include information that is in the cited sources. I would prefer that you do not edit the draft in my sandbox, because you are still struggling with Wikipedia's basic rules. However, you are welcome to participate in discussion at the article talk page. It may remain nothing more than a proposal, but if people who are knowledgeable about Wikipedia's rules agree to replace the existing article with my proposed one, you'll be welcome to be part of the conversation on the talk page about how it can be improved. I'm well aware that my draft is an early stub with lots of room for improvement, and welcome changes within Wikipedia's rules. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:31, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
The usual way to participate in a deletion discussion is for each person to make one comment, briefly summing up the best reasons that a subject does, or does not, meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. Your recent edit was a lengthy comment that had nothing at all to do with this subject, and was one of many long comments irrelevant to the discussion. Making multiple, long, irrelevant comments is disruptive to the discussion, and makes you look like a person who does not understand the rules well enough to make useful contributions to the discussion: you will be taken more seriously if you limit yourself to a simple, concise statement that's directly relevant to the discussion, then wait, trusting that other users are able to review the article and sources and see whether the subject is notable or not. Have you considered trying to master Wikipedia's rules by volunteering to improve some articles that are not related to your own organization? That'll show that you care more about the good of the encyclopedia than the good of your church, and it'll help you to get a better mastery of the rules, so you'll be better able to help in this subject, too. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:39, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Be very careful with non-public personal information[edit]
Wikipedia has very strict guidelines about posting of personal information. "Personal information includes legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, whether any such information is accurate or not." This includes the place of work, job title, and telephone number of individuals related to a subject—especially where that place of employment is not related to the article. This is viewed as a serious offence by the community: such edits are typically suppressed to preserve the individual's privacy, and the editor posting the information may be blocked with little warning. —C.Fred (talk) 13:28, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Administrator notice board[edit]
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. —C.Fred (talk) 17:43, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
JordanFrancis (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Yes I have made claims, based on claims of a lack of neutrality and biased support by editors because of their relationship with Universal Life Church of Modesto, Universal Life Church Seminary or the Universal Life Church Monastery Storehouse. As it turned out it was determined there was a sockpuppet account conspiracy, led by NatGertler who has also been banned from what I understand. Something that would not have been revealed if it was not for my revealing or questioning such. I was only looking to point out a violation and had no other recourse than to identify this individual. There are others who also should be banned. Regarding IP Address I accept responsibility for not knowing Wikipedia's rules regarding this, however I assure you PastorBodhi1 is a different individual than I, however as President of the Universal Life Church World Headquarters, and of the other ULC as I hope to be contingent on pending litigation, it a natural flaw for me to stick my nose in where it doesn't belong. I am not the author of this article. Wherefore I ask for you to reinstate PastorBodhi1 and I will agree to delete my account. My objectivity in doing so is only to insure accuracy of this finished article. Regarding citations young lady, a press release be-it by the ULC or an independent agency makes us just as liable for the contents thereof. The fact we issue our own press releases similar to that of the Vatican this does not make their validity any less than those released by a 3rd party. When my name was mentioned by I believe FisherQueen? Why was she not removed. She should also be banned from this discussion. Perhaps because her name is not Brother Michael CFred with respect to your block, I did not publicly expose anyone yet, I was alleging neutrality issues because of the "Church of Scientology" comparison and the fact you and other editors are all connected to the Universal Life Church. Your attacks on us are biased, and the Universal Life Church article is not accurate, because it has a safety net of editors who protects it and forbids it to updated with the truth and you are one of them. JordanFrancis (talk) 09:44, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Have you read WP:NOTTHEM? Your unblock request consists to a large extent of accusations against other editors, including the absurd claim that CFred is a biased editor "connected to the Universal Life Church" (have you actually looked at his editing history?) and your completely unsubstantiated claim that NatGertler is a sockpuppeer, and the visibly false claim that he is "banned". I think it only fair to warn you that, if you continue to use this talk page to do more of what you were blocked for, then your talk page access will be removed. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:21, 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.
- The accusation that I 'mentioned your name' is also rather bizarre. If your name isn't Jordan Francis I have no idea what it is, and I was never very curious, either. I'm willing to believe that the three accounts at your ip address are three individuals, but that only means that you are all working together to make the same disruptive edits, and the relevant block policy is WP:MEAT and not WP:SOCK. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:16, 6 August 2012 (UTC)