Hello, Keepitreal2, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you foryour contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction andGetting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page andHow to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please remember tosign your messages ontalk pages by typing fourtildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check outWikipedia:Questions, orclick here to ask for help here on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome!^—Asterisk*^Splat→17:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did atMissouri Executive Order 44. Your edits appear to bedisruptive and have beenreverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an articlecontent dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia'sdispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of therelevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia'sAdministrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia'spolicies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved throughconsensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result inloss of editing privileges. Additionally, it is very clear that you are also editing as the IP editor. This is a form ofSock puppetry. We welcome a discusstion your views atTalk:Missouri_Executive_Order_44#Recent_edits. However, based on your edit summaries, i.e. "Inconvenient truth", I suggest you readWikipedia:NOT TRUTH.---ARTEST4ECHO^(Talk)21:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will be taking up your preplanned, unwaranted attack on my verifiable sourced edits with the appropriate folks. Deleting my response to the discussion you were having about me further demonstrates and positively affirms my position.

Keepitreal2 (talk)16:34, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.---ARTEST4ECHO^(Talk)16:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for replying to my comments atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. As a partial answer to them:

"1. Although after being repeatedly advised it is misogynistic to assume I am male and refer to me as such, Artest4echo is still refering to me as "his" even in these resposes here. Clearly he has an issue and my assertion in the matter continues to be validated."

As you have expressed offence by misuse of the male pronoun, I ask that you please forgive and move on. Gender-related behavior is a particularly sensitive topic both for many Latter-day Saints as well as editors here at Wikipedia. If anyone is truly is misogynistic, their conduct will make this fairly obvious to all parties going forward; however, if this was perhaps merely an unfortunate mistake (or series of mistakes), please do not "make him an offender for a word" (Isaiah 29:21). Unfortunately, at this stage, continuing to pursue this weakens your credibility with other editors, and actually distracts from what appears to be your core concerns; if you cannot forgive, please at least set this aside, at least for now.

"2. Having contributed such a large portion has given him a God complex and he feels he is the absolute authority. One could argue a person with that much contribution makes the subject lopsided or skewed to said persons opinion."

What you are describing is what we callownership of articles (or ownership, for short). Please "[d]o not confuse stewardship with ownership. Stewardship of an article (or group of related articles) may be the result of a sincere personal interest in the subject matter" - an attempt at stewardship is what I see here, both from you as well as the other participants: I think we all have a sincere desire to get this right, however much distance there might be between the personal views any participant in this conflict. Using loaded words like "God complex" and "absolute authority" doesn't play to your favor. If you think anyone is actuallyexhibiting ownership behavior, you can certainly to call them on it, but do so with less colorful (or what some might consider inflammatory) language; passionate language is often given less weight than more neutralJack Webb/Sam Spade-style wording. Most importantly, be very specific, including providingdiff's when applicable; being general and making overly broad statements, especially about your fellow editors, is often consideredhandwaving, and being seen that way does not help you at all.

"3. Not one acknowledgement or discussion of my concerns here have been addressed."

I'm very sorry that you feel this way. When I tried to work thru all of your comments, I myself had difficulty keeping track of exactly what those issues are, other than the two that you enumerated before and the one after this item. Clear, concise, and more neutrally wording will go a long way toward getting your voice heard. Additionally, list of your concerns are easier to respond to: even bullet points of abbreviated length, of any remaining outstanding concerns might be helpful. Decentralising locations of discussions and emotionally charged wording will not be helpful in getting your points across on talk pages.

"4. Skewing an article to slander a group of people which takes away the extreme injustice done to them does make someone "anti". It doesn't have to be done overtly."

This seems to be the core of your concerns, at least to the extent that I understand them right now. However, I think that it's best to discuss that atTalk:Missouri Executive Order 44.

Unfortunately I'm out of time for today. I was sincere when I welcomed you above; I want you to stay and continue contributing in a useful manner. There's a learning curve for everyone contributing here, and I don't pretend to be off that curve yet myself. Byassuming good faith, especially when you feel your fellow editors don't deserve it, and following the other fundamental principles we try to abide by here, you might be surprised what we can accomplish together. Also you might findthis useful material to ponder.^—Asterisk*^Splat→01:47, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*,ARTEST4ECHO,ecjmartin Yall can not like my colorful language all you want. It in no way makes me less credible.

My Great Grandfathers includeJoseph Knight, Sr.,Isaac Morley,Thomas Bingham,John Holladay,George Washington Bradley etc. etc.

Like I said I am on my mobile so my responses are brief. Understand when the article says nobody was known to have been killed as a result... we have a problem. CiaoKeepitreal2 (talk)06:21, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and btw if you can't follow my issues it's because somebody saw fit to edit my own responses to accusations against me. Cute.

I had hoped your initial response to me on the Admin noticeboard indicated a real willingness to open a true dialog; based this last reply, my hope appears to have not been well founded. If you can provide a more meaningful, less flippant reply to what I have wrote above, I'd be happy to continue talking with you; otherwise I think I'm done here.^—Asterisk*^Splat→16:23, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you are done here. It's a little hard to justify attacking my credibility given my provided credentials.

Again facts have a way of escaping this whole circular conversation.

Nothing flippant about itUser:AsteriskStarSplat

You haven't provided any "credentials" at all. My ancestors includeCharlemagne andButton Gwinett; that doesn't makeme an expert on Medieval France, the American Revolution or the Declaration of Independence. Appropriate "credentials" would include academic degrees in the subject specified, or previous publications on the matter that have garnered favorable reviews from at least one other disinterested expert on the subject.Those are credentials; having noteworthy ancestors is not. That said, you did provide us with an excellent source, and I thank and compliment you for that. -Ecjmartin (talk)17:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This coming from a dude who concurred with the bogus academic consensus that Reynolds and gang could not have possibly known of Order 44.

Lmao if that, my friend, is acadamia! Those types of credentials hardly hold a candle to the type I speak of. Unlike your Charlemagne comparison, I doubt you grew up in France reading and studying his journals, listening to the events that unfolded from the time you were born, day in and day out, concerning the horrors brought upon your people. CheersKeepitreal2 (talk)02:34, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please specify which incident you are insinuating I am involved with.

Keepitreal2 (talk)16:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I noticed you've made edits to articles related to theLatter Day Saint movement and thought you might be interested in participating in theWikiProject Latter Day Saint movement. This project aims to serve as a hub for collaboration on elements of the Latter Day Saint movement,Mormonism,Latter Day Saint history, doctrine, practices, and other cultural effects inspired byJoseph Smith. You don't have to be a member of the Latter Day Saint movement to participate. Best wishes!^—Asterisk*^Splat→20:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history atMissouri Executive Order 44 shows that you are currently engaged in anedit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article'stalk page to work toward making a version that representsconsensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. SeeBRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevantnoticeboard or seekdispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporarypage protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your beingblocked from editing—especially if you violate thethree-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than threereverts 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. —MusikAnimal^talk23:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information as I did not kno who to turn to. These folks have a history of such behavior.Keepitreal2 (talk)23:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Keepitreal2. I am a complete outsider, with absolutely no axe to grind on behalf of or against the LDS, and i hope (a) you don't mind my popping in here, and (b) are willing to hear a little unbiased advice. Right now, whether it's true or not, you are coming across as angry and unwilling to listen to anything those you are in dispute with are saying. It appears you are allowing yourself to get hung up on trivialities (does it matter, in a text-based medium, if you are referred to by the correctly gendered pronoun?), and unwilling to disengage or relax.
May i suggest, take a break ~ from Wikipedia, sure, or just from this article, or from the topic area ~ and allow yourself to see the foolishness of it all. In the long term, it doesn't matter; in the long term, and there is no deadline, this is a long-term project, much or all of what you and i contribute will disappear. If you do decide to step away a little, spend some time reading some of the vast numbers of essays and guidelines, and the very few policies, about Wikipedia. Doing that, at various times, has helped me to understand how best i may contribute.
My fear is that, otherwise, you will be seen (accurately or not) as an edit warrior, a single purpose account, a troll, or a disruptive editor of another kind, and pushed out the door. And that action would be to no one's benefit.
Finally, i should note that i have linked nothing in my little spiel here, but i am happy to help you find any help or policy or essay or whatever, if i can. Again, hope you don't mind me coming on over. Cheers,Lindsay^Hello08:38, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Get over yourself. I don't care how I come across. I care that the correct information is presented in a non slanderous way about this particular subject. You clearly don't read or listen otherwise you would realize there are others involved in this that also focus on this subject. And yes it does matter how I am adressed as well as how I was accused of doing stuff I did not do. Go away as your post was pointless. I'm not here to make friends. Call that whatever you like but do so to yourself please.— Precedingunsigned comment added byKeepitreal2 (talk •contribs) 14:27, 30 January 2015‎

This is an automated message fromCorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents ofJoseph Smith 1844 Presidential Platform, and it appears to include material copied directly fromhttp://www.blacklds.org/platform.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is notpublic domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See ourcopyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, seeWikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.)CorenSearchBot (talk)18:47, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not copyrighted by blacklds.com. Written by Joseph Smith 1844

The articleJoseph Smith 1844 Presidential Platform has beenproposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Nothing but a copy of a document. This belongs in Wikisource, not Wikipedia

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing{{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop theproposed deletion process, but otherdeletion processes exist. In particular, thespeedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, andarticles for deletion allows discussion to reachconsensus for deletion.Bgwhite (talk)05:22, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed onJoseph Smith 1844 Presidential Platform requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done undersection G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clearcopyright infringement. This article or image appears to be a direct copy fromhttps://books.google.co.in/books?id=-FSSBgAAQBAJ&pg=PP8&lpg=PP8&dq=The+elder+Adams,+in+his+inaugural+address,+gives+national+pride+such+a+grand+turn+of+justification,+that+every+honest+citizen+must+look+back+upon+the+infancy+of+the+United+States+with+an+approving+smile,+and+rejoice+that+patriotism+in+their+rulers,+virtue+in+the+people,+and+prosperity+in+the+Union+once+crowded+the+expectations+of+hope,+unveiled+the+sophistry+of+the+hypocrite,+and+silenced+the+folly+of+foes.+Mr.+Adams+said,+%22If+national+pride+is+ever+justifiable+or+excusable,+it+is+when+it+springs+not+from+power+or+riches,+grandeur+or+glory,+but+from+conviction+of+national+innocence,+information,+and+benevolence.%22+There+is+no+doubt+such+was+actually+the+case+with+our+young+realm+at+the+close+of+the+last+century.+Peace,+prosperity,+and+union+filled+the+country+with+religious+toleration,+temporal+enjoyment,+and+virtuous+enterprise;+and+grandly,+too,+when+the+deadly+winter+of+the+%22Stamp+Act,%22+the+%22Tea+Act,%22+and+other+close+communion+acts+of+Royalty+had+choked+the+growth+of+freedom+of+speech,+liberty+of+the+press,+and+liberty+of+conscience-did+light,+liberty,+and+loyalty+flourish+like+the+cedars+of+God.&source=bl&ots=U_wpURCKGy&sig=IglVQ8DxF4_vzHiVf26K_i3jv1c&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwip9ZuH0KPJAhVDFJQKHccqDrwQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=The%20elder%20Adams%2C%20in%20his%20inaugural%20address%2C%20gives%20national%20pride%20such%20a%20grand%20turn%20of%20justification%2C%20that%20every%20honest%20citizen%20must%20look%20back%20upon%20the%20infancy%20of%20the%20United%20States%20with%20an%20approving%20smile%2C%20and%20rejoice%20that%20patriotism%20in%20their%20rulers%2C%20virtue%20in%20the%20people%2C%20and%20prosperity%20in%20the%20Union%20once%20crowded%20the%20expectations%20of%20hope%2C%20unveiled%20the%20sophistry%20of%20the%20hypocrite%2C%20and%20silenced%20the%20folly%20of%20foes.%20Mr.%20Adams%20said%2C%20%22If%20national%20pride%20is%20ever%20justifiable%20or%20excusable%2C%20it%20is%20when%20it%20springs%20not%20from%20power%20or%20riches%2C%20grandeur%20or%20glory%2C%20but%20from%20conviction%20of%20national%20innocence%2C%20information%2C%20and%20benevolence.%22%20There%20is%20no%20doubt%20such%20was%20actually%20the%20case%20with%20our%20young%20realm%20at%20the%20close%20of%20the%20last%20century.%20Peace%2C%20prosperity%2C%20and%20union%20filled%20the%20country%20with%20religious%20toleration%2C%20temporal%20enjoyment%2C%20and%20virtuous%20enterprise%3B%20and%20grandly%2C%20too%2C%20when%20the%20deadly%20winter%20of%20the%20%22Stamp%20Act%2C%22%20the%20%22Tea%20Act%2C%22%20and%20other%20close%20communion%20acts%20of%20Royalty%20had%20choked%20the%20growth%20of%20freedom%20of%20speech%2C%20liberty%20of%20the%20press%2C%20and%20liberty%20of%20conscience-did%20light%2C%20liberty%2C%20and%20loyalty%20flourish%20like%20the%20cedars%20of%20God.&f=false. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source ofinformation, but not as a source ofsentences. This part is crucial:say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violatorswill beblocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then youmust verify that externally by one of the processes explained atWikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, seeWikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look atWikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a questionhere.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you maycontest the nomination byvisiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, 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 from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line withWikipedia's policies and guidelines. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)08:37, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The articleJoseph Smith 1844 Presidential Platform has beenproposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unencyclopedic:Wikipedia articles are not mere collections of public domain material.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing{{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop theproposed deletion process, but otherdeletion processes exist. In particular, thespeedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, andarticles for deletion allows discussion to reachconsensus for deletion. —teb728tc04:53, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the articleJoseph Smith 1844 Presidential Platform is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according toWikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should bedeleted.

The article will be discussed atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Smith 1844 Presidential Platform 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.Bgwhite (talk)05:02, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]