User talk:Descartes1979
Nice to see your name...
[edit]When I saw you'd done some editing (in my watchlist) I smiled to myself. Hope all is well... ;) A Sniper (talk) 08:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Did you get the book? I sent one I thought you'd like to your work address. All the best, :) A Sniper (talk) 20:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, I will have to check - it has actually been a while since I looked at my work email box. Thanks for that - I will let you know. --Descartes1979 (talk) 20:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- Note: this was a real world book sent to your real world office, to your attention, via the post. Hope the grad school thing is coming together & that life in general is good. A Sniper (talk) 20:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oops I meant "mail box" - the "e" slipped in there on accident - anyway I understood what you were saying. Grad school: 2 applications in, three to go - shotgun approach - so hopefully I get into one of them :).--Descartes1979 (talk) 03:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- Hey! The company I used to send the book claim it was 'lost in the mail' and gave me a refund. I've now used another and it should arrive within the week...Hope the grad school apps bear fruit. :) A Sniper (talk) 17:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, I will have to check - it has actually been a while since I looked at my work email box. Thanks for that - I will let you know. --Descartes1979 (talk) 20:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
List of Publications Critical of Mormonism
[edit]Thanks for the note on my talk page. I actually don't even remember doing that, but if Wikipedia says it then it must be true. Probably it was part of the "Anti-Mormonism" article and I wanted to delete it, but couldn't bring myself to annihilate someone else's work entirely, so gave it its own list. In any case, I'm not invested in it. You can certainly do what you please with it, including deleting it.CaliforniaKid (talk) 07:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Request for proofreading
[edit]Hi! You're listed in Category:Proofreaders_es-en and as a near-native speaker of Spanish in Category:User_es-4, although you don't seem to have the userboxes (any more?). Could I persuade you to check a translation for me? It's a short excerpt from Lope de Vega's Isidoro de Madrid, in Homo unius libri#Interpretations. My translation is in the footnote. The language is a little archaic, and it's in verse, so this was a challenge for me and I could use your input (especially for the line «como van dejando atrás», which I translated to maintain the meter rather than literally). Thanks, if you're willing to help! - Unconventional (talk) 20:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Simple Inquiry
[edit]Howdy! So obviously I've seen you presence around Wiki since we both seem to be watching the same articles. I was wondering to myself earlier though, so I figured I'd read you own page. And I came upon a question that I figured can only be answered by you since making assumptions usually ends up wrong. Your statement "I was a Mormon most of my life (though no longer practicing)" is what brought this about. So here's my question(s), and please, if I'm stepping on toes feel free to shoot me in the foot. Do you still consider yourself Mormon, or do you consider yourself a former Mormon? And as such (either/or) what is your position/take on Mormonism (a term I've come to dislike)? As I stated on my reply to the talk page of the article I proposed a change to (linguistics of BoM), I may not reply as speedily as normal due to outside circumstances...but I will reply nonetheless. Infero Veritas (talk) 16:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
It is in your capable hands
[edit]Descartes, West Ridge is now in your hands. It is boggling to work with an editor that is on the outside of reality looking in. I think Doyle will have more confidence that you are neutral than me. I will step back and let you handle him for a while. If you could help him understand the arbitration process and when it is appropriate, it would be helpful. I am confident that Doyle would not like the process should they shock me and accept to participate. Good luck. --StormRider 19:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- I agree - there is no way this is going to arbitration - but I will do what I can. At the end of the day, I think this is a lot of hubbub for a pretty minor article and some pretty obscure "controversy". I will do what I can (though I might tire of this article as well...)--Descartes1979 (talk) 19:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- I just saw your archive and had to laugh out loud; I could almost see the frustration with all the kibbitzing back and forth; hands go up in the air and dumped to the archive it goes. I commend you for your effort and I think it was probably a good choice. It will help everyone breath. I couldn't stay away...work was not demanding and I had too much time on my hands. Thank you for sticking with it.--StormRider 03:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- Lol - thanks Storm, I chuckled a bit myself when I did it :). Btw, I know we don't always see eye to eye on Mormon topics, but it is nice to have another established editor around who knows the standard processes - especially when we are dealing with such extreme voices on both sides of the debate on this particular topic. Oh and that is not an admission that I will always back you up by the way - lol. --Descartes1979 (talk) 03:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- I just saw your archive and had to laugh out loud; I could almost see the frustration with all the kibbitzing back and forth; hands go up in the air and dumped to the archive it goes. I commend you for your effort and I think it was probably a good choice. It will help everyone breath. I couldn't stay away...work was not demanding and I had too much time on my hands. Thank you for sticking with it.--StormRider 03:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you both for your assistance. I could certainly use some advice at this point and have done all I can to avoid edits and let you two make the edits, do what you feel is best. This little, tiny article is not worthy such outrageous hours of attention. Just when things had calmed down, we are right back where we started from and a large majority of issues have been freight-trained again. I really am not motivated to spend another 40 hours on this 400 word article. How do we arbitrate this, or even just shut it down. It is a productivity killer and frankly not worth it! As you said, a lot of hubub for minor article. I have done all I can to follow your lead and instructions and have left the editing to you. I don't want your agreement or even support - just instruction on how to cease this great sucker of time and energy. Any help would be appreciated. If there is no solution for getting this one back on track, even to where we were this morning, just tell me and I will cease trying. Thanks again for any recommendations or assistance or education. DoonRay (talk) 23:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
[edit]SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 04:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Unreferenced BLPs
[edit]
Hello Descartes1979! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 2 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 5 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:
- Calaway H. Dodson - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
- John A. Tvedtnes - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 20:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Ethem. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethem. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:07, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Barnstar !!!
[edit]
|
Barnstar Award for Activism | |
| You have been awarded the "Fat Dude" Barnstar for your religious activism in the various Mormon articles. |
Proposed deletion of Jeff Lindsay (engineer)
[edit]I have removed the prod tag you placed on Jeff Lindsay (engineer) because the article was discussed at AfD with a consensus to keep in July 2006, and is therefore permanently ineligible for prod. Compliance with policy/procedure is the only reason I did this; I have no prejudice against opening another AfD. —KuyaBriBriTalk 20:07, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
- Understood - thanks. --Descartes1979 (talk) 20:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
I have a suspicion that User:Kovesh and User:Onondaga are socks one of the other. If you look at their contributions they are exactly parallel. --Taivo (talk) 00:32, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
- I have also suspected that - but I don't know how to prove it, or the appropriate process for reporting and investigating it?--Descartes1979 (talk) 02:45, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
- I initiated a report here. This is the first time I've submitted one, so I don't know how automated the process is after posting. --Taivo (talk) 03:14, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Friberg Samuel the Lamanite low res.JPG
[edit]
Thanks for uploading File:Friberg Samuel the Lamanite low res.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
PLEASE NOTE:
- I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
- I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
- If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
- To opt out of these bot messages, add
{{bots|deny=DASHBot}}to your talk page. - If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.
Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:52, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
John Gee
[edit]Hi! I've declined your PROD on John Gee, but I would suggest you consider listing it at Articles for Deletion, and better grounding your rationale in references to Wikipedia policy. I think there's an entirely fair question as to whether Gee is notable under WP:SCHOLAR, for example, and "signficant coverage" is a nuanced term with regard to the general notability guideline WP:GNG, but my reaction (that is, my sense that there is a good question there) is based on a cursory read of the article and sources, not a careful analysis. Good luck! --j⚛e deckertalk 02:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
- Fair enough - thanks!--Descartes1979 (talk) 03:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Merge discussion
[edit]As the creator of one or more or the article involved in this merge discussion I thought you should be informed about the discussion.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 16:03, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
- Thx - I added my comments. I say go for the merge if you think that is what is best. --Descartes1979 (talk) 19:23, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Duke53
[edit]His page is still on my watch-list, and I saw your comment. Would it be worth taking that off-wiki issue to WP:ANI? I don't know if anything can be done, but maybe the admins ought to be made aware of it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
proflowers
[edit]they where paid a premium amount for a delievery they botched for my mothers funeral. my brothers girlfriend was in tears over her flowers being the only one not there,proflowers sent a EMAIL!! at 1230 when the funeral started at 1pm,the funeral directors were on the phone trying to get a rep and they were not available.
she spent $200 for a flower arrangement and got zilch... how is that unsubstantiated??? do you need a invoice copy????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anitasmalling (talk • contribs) 04:53, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Don't matter dude - Wikipedia is not a place for personal beefs. Sorry to hear you had a bad experience - but your claims can't be substantiated by an independent source, and are not notable for inclusion in an encyclopedia, and your edits are considered vandalism according to WP standards. You will be blocked if you keep this up. --Descartes1979 (talk) 07:12, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
so get off your high horse and LOOK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! you can claim this and that all you want but it is you! that can not prove a dang thing.report all you want as i can do the same ,i can also create a 100 email accounts too.vandalism??? please..you have no clue what vadalism is ,you can edit anything you want huh?? ok then try and edit the page i will create and bash proflowers for desecrating a funeral....
protect the villain and pound the victim???????????????????? that must be your way... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anitasmalling (talk • contribs) 23:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Dude seriously - take a chill pill. Wikipedia is an ENCYCLOPEDIA. Not the Better Business Bureau. Nor is this, or will it ever be, a place for revenge. If you have an independent newspaper article or report about how awful Proflowers is because of your funeral fiasco, then that is great - that is an independent source and we can include that information. If all you have is your word - sorry but that is not good enough. Raise hell with ProFlowers or the BBB, or the state government for all I care. Don't try to muck up an encyclopedia with such an obviously extremely minor incident. --Descartes1979 (talk) 02:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
COI and AFD
[edit]Coming from the opposite side of the fence, I respect that you removed your vote here. On the other hand, I don't think you need to; AFD is a perfect place to discuss something even with a COI. I admire that you are able to discuss topics from an objective point of view. Because of that, I'm curious what your opinion of this AFD is; I don't care if you !vote for or against, I just would appreciate your opinion. tedder (talk) 17:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. I guess I removed my vote not only because I felt like I had a COI, but honestly I am not quite sure what I think about it. It is easy for me to say Strong Keep if I have my nose in the article all day, but when I step back I am not so sure. The thing is - I often find myself perusing these mormon vs. science type articles and trying to add some balance to them because left untouched and unscrutinized, they almost always end up uncritical missionary tracts for the LDS church - with no skeptical balance whatsoever. I have seen it happen a bunch of times at Book of Abraham, Linguistics and the Book of Mormon, and Archaeology and the Book of Mormon, and Genetics and the Book of Mormon. But ultimately - if I was god of the Wikipedia - I would have all of this information much more concise and intertwined within the main Book of Mormon page itself - because ultimately these other pages started as POV forks, and ended up being "teach the controversy" pieces. I do think the Wikipedia is better that they exist - because they have become incredibly thorough because of the friction between critics and faithful Mormons. So what is the answer? I don't know. As a side note - I already weighed in on the AFD you mentioned, you probably didn't notice - see [1]--Descartes1979 (talk) 23:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- Indeed, having a lot of articles is effectively a content fork- it gives the limited number of wikipedians who are remotely interested in the topic of Mormonism 40 acres and a mule of their very own, which nets a worse 'pedia. On the other hand, by the policy, they could merit their own article. It's hard to balance that. On the AFD- oops, I didn't think you had weighed in, but obviously you had. Sigh. I'll listen to a few of their podcasts, but that doesn't have any bearing on my opinion of its encyclopedic merit. tedder (talk) 23:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Welcome Back!
[edit]Thanks for the hello! I had been meaning to reply for some time but never managed to. Glad to have you back editing again - hope you're well in the real world, etc. You will only see me occasionally fix a vandalism at the JSJr. page or one of the historical articles, as I'm not concentrating on that topic much these days. At the JSJr. page I mostly act as guardian of the small Emma Smith section towards the bottom, and also contribute when I can to JSIII and various reorganization pages. In any case, all the best & keep in touch. Best, A Sniper (talk) 09:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Template:LDSproject
[edit]You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement#Template:LDSproject. This invitation is being extended because you have previously edited this template, which indicates you may have some level of interest in it. 208.81.184.4 (talk) 17:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC) (Using {{pls}})
Trademark not Copyright
[edit]Somewhere you mentioned that some one is trying to copyright the word "Mormon." Such words can't be copyrighted. They can some times be trademarked. The www.uspto.gov has registered many trademarks which have the word Mormon in them. See below.
MORMON IN MANHATTAN TARR LIVE 2 85120378 JACK MORMON TARR LIVE 3 85055316 MORMON TEA TARR LIVE 4 78977858 3239919 MORMON TARR LIVE 5 78833327 BABY MORMON TARR DEAD 6 78608815 MORMON MAGNETS TARR DEAD 7 78536485 BOOK OF MORMON CHRISTIAN TARR DEAD 8 78448666 I CAN'T...I'M MORMON TARR DEAD 9 78431934 MORMONAIRE TARR DEAD 10 78412321 HOLD TO THE ROD BOOK OF MORMON EDITION DVD INTERACTIVE GAME FOR TV TARR DEAD 11 78300240 BOOK OF MORMON QUEST TARR DEAD 12 78288722 MORMON CHAMBER OF COMMERCE CONNECTING BUSINESS INTEGRITY TARR DEAD 13 78249483 MORMONS R CHRISTIAN 2 TARR DEAD 14 78167224 YES, I AM MORMON TARR DEAD 15 78167217 MORMON MOBILE TARR DEAD 16 78161091 MORMON TARR DEAD 17 77701848 MORMON CHANNEL TARR DEAD 18 77785145 3812078 JACK MORMON TARR LIVE 19 77337325 SECRET MORMON TARR LIVE 20 77217243 MY BOOK OF MORMON DOLL TARR DEAD 21 77203424 MORMON CHICKS RULE. TARR DEAD 22 77179068 3715744 MORMON.ORG TARR LIVE 23 76505493 2913694 MORMON TABERNACLE CHOIR TARR LIVE 24 76405608 2883572 BOOK OF MORMON TARR LIVE 25 76340212 2766231 MORMON TABERNACLE CHOIR TARR LIVE 26 76490475 3335634 MORMON WELLS TARR LIVE 27 76374845 MORMON GAB TARR DEAD 28 76106693 2586818 MORMON JEWELRY TARR LIVE 29 75666862 2652190 MORMON-OPOLY TARR DEAD 30 75932900 2455046 MORMON TOWN TARR DEAD 31 75910011 MORMON SCRIPTURE STUDIES TARR DEAD 32 75735166 MORMONRADIO.COM TARR DEAD 33 75451273 MORMON FOLK TARR DEAD 34 75227414 2138062 MORMON TRAIL WAGON TRAIN - 150 YEARS TARR DEAD 35 75222126 2161100 UNITED STATES MORMON BATTALION COMMEMORATIVE ASSOCIATION TARR DEAD 36 75210906 2153509 MORMON FOOTBALL LEAGUE TARR DEAD 37 75030159 2031959 MORMON HEROES TARR DEAD 38 74679440 IOWA MORMON TRAILS TARR DEAD 39 74564006 1920473 UNITED STATES MORMON BATTALION ARMY OF THE WEST GOD AND COUNTRY 1992 TARR DEAD 40 74414166 BOOK OF MORMON CHALLENGE TARR DEAD 41 73592324 1524555 MORMON HANDICRAFT TARR LIVE 42 73592323 1527447 MORMON HANDICRAFT TARR LIVE
The names of some churches can be trademarked such as Scientology. The name "Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" appears in the following trademarks.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Serial Number Reg. Number Word Mark Check Status Live/Dead 1 78672203 THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS (STRANGITE) TARR DEAD 2 78613159 3188759 REORGANIZED CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TARR LIVE 3 78613124 3173265 REORGANIZED CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS PEACE TARR LIVE 4 78217783 REORGANIZED CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS PEACE TARR DEAD 5 78217741 REORGANIZED CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TARR DEAD 6 77262992 REMNANT CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS 1830 TARR DEAD 7 76269320 REMNANT CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS 1830 TARR DEAD 8 75636824 2309318 THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS TARR LIVE 9 75132997 2163221 THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS TARR LIVE 10 75007900 2111571 THE ENSIGN OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS TARR LIVE 11 75132996 2135319 THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS TARR LIVE 12 75132979 2133843 THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS TARR LIVE 13 75129338 2133837 THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS TARR LIVE 14 75132978 2097186 THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS TARR LIVE 15 74801397 1864725 THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS TARR LIVE 16 74800567 1963567 THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS TARR LIVE 17 74445040 RESTORATION CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TARR DEAD 18 74209273 1776809 THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS TARR LIVE 19 74208414 1757271 THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS TARR LIVE 20 74206831 1749899 THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS TARR DEAD 21 74206826 1980319 THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS TARR LIVE 22 74014596 1672823 REORGANIZED CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS PEACE TARR DEAD 23 73752218 1738742 THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS TARR LIVE 24 73649476 REORGANIZED CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TARR DEAD 25 72212246 0808988 REORGANIZED CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS PEAC E TARR DEAD --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prsaucer1958 (talk) 00:04, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the info! --Descartes1979 (talk) 17:00, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Ichthus: January 2012
[edit] |
ICHTHUS |
| January 2012 |
In this issue...
For submissions and subscriptions contact the Newsroom
Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Friberg Samuel the Lamanite low res.JPG
[edit]
Thank you for uploading File:Friberg Samuel the Lamanite low res.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.
If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. 208.81.184.4 (talk) 00:48, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
June 2013
[edit]
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Daniel C. Peterson may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- Languages cultivates and endorses? Evidently some have shifted from apologist to misologist."<ref>(Computer message by Brent Metcalfe, dated March 8,1994 as quoted at http://www.utlm.org/newsletters/
- There were very few printed and distributed, and virtually all were successfully recalled." <ref>(Computer message by Daniel Peterson, dated August 29,2008 as quoted at http://mormondiscussions.com/
Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:21, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for June 15
[edit]Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Daniel C. Peterson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Butthead (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:07, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Robert K. Ritner, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://nelc.uchicago.edu/faculty/ritner.
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 not public 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 our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 22:25, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
The article Robert K. Ritner has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this newly created biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.
If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. GZWDer (talk) 05:36, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
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) 17:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
The article Aminadi has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Deaddebate (talk) 00:01, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
The article Amlici has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Deaddebate (talk) 00:12, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of Ammah (Book of Mormon)
[edit]The article Ammah (Book of Mormon) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Deaddebate (talk) 00:12, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of Ammon (Book of Mormon explorer)
[edit]The article Ammon (Book of Mormon explorer) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Deaddebate (talk) 00:26, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
The article Antionah has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
while I understand the thinking of the creator of the article, it is inherently not notable, as the subject is only mentioned once in the book of mormon. There are no secondary sources which one could find on the topic.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Rollidan (talk) 04:00, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
The file File:Joseph Smith Papyrus XI.gif has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
unused, low-res, no obvious use
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.
This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
The article Aha (Book of Mormon) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
This article is about a very minor individual in the Book of Mormon. The only place that this individual is mentioned is one passage in said book, and there are no secondary sources that one could find to support this article. Thus, it fails WP:GNG.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Rollidan (talk) 02:21, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
"Yellowstone Nationa Park" listed at Redirects for discussion
[edit]A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Yellowstone Nationa Park. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 17#Yellowstone Nationa Park until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Regards, SONIC678 20:22, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
The article Amulon has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
This is an article about a minor individual found in the Book of Mormon. There are no independent sources that have been found, or could be found, about this individual. Such a circumstance warrants deletion.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Rollidan (talk) 04:39, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abinadom until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.Big Money Threepwood (talk) 18:31, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chemish until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.Big Money Threepwood (talk) 18:33, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amaron until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.Big Money Threepwood (talk) 18:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hagoth until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.Big Money Threepwood (talk) 05:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
The article Omner has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
This topic does not meet WP:GNG
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.
This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 2 June 2024 (UTC)