| Revision as of 05:40, 9 September 2006 editDr U (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,563 edits →Undiscussed edits← Previous edit | Revision as of 05:49, 9 September 2006 edit undoDr U (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,563 edits cleanupNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| == List of Latter Day Saints == | |||
| Noticed your edits on Controversial figures and alleged Criminals. Please see the talk page for a fairly intensive discussion on the topic - some of your changes may be reversed based on the editor's decisions there. Best wishes. ] 05:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :-Good to hear from you. I haven't seen your name for awhile. Didn't mean to intrude, but last I looked, the trend was for removing names from CF&C category and placing them on the alternate page. I'll look over the talk page again. | |||
| :-I'm doing some work on the ] article that might help me begin on our discussed effort on the ]. Your eye is welcome on those edits. Best wishes. ] 05:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Thanks for your improvements to the ] page. If you have more info about him, please share. He is an ancestor of mine. ] 10:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Thank you for your comments. I will see what I can do about the photo gallery on the John Van Cott page. Formatting is not my forte, but I will try to fiddle with it. I am curious as to which child your wife is descended from. Feel free to visit my family history webpage at: mytribe dot dilaandarnie dot com; I am descended from Frank Victor Van Cott, his second child with his wife Laura Lund. Regards ] 05:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Fair use rationale for Image:NickUdall.jpg== | |||
| Thanks for uploading ''']'''. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under ] but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Misplaced Pages articles constitutes fair use. | |||
| Please go to ] and edit it to include a fair use rationale. | |||
| If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "]" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on ]. If you have any questions please ask them at the ]. Thank you. | |||
| This is an automated notice by ]. For assistance on the image use policy, see ]. 20:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Mormon martyr == | |||
| I don't think that the category mormon martyr is even neutral, but if you think he is a martyr lets try Christian martyr's as the category seems to be part of the mormons aren't christian's campaign. I can think of differences between JS and PPP, for example: 1) the motivation of the killer: JS - hatred for JS because of his religious beliefs vs PPP - hatred for PPP because he stole the killer's wife; 2) killers: JS killed by a mob(an outspoken subset of the community) vs PPP killed by a man and his friends. While I can see the argument that PPP was killed for his beliefs in plural marriage, that does not, IMHO, come close to the same as JS. --<font color="#06C">]</font> 01:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Sounds good - I'll think about the martyr vs domestic dispute some more too :) --<font color="#06C">]</font> 01:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Thanks for starting to improve things. I'm sure there are all kinds of those kinds of errors sprinkled through the article. Hopefully now they are easier to find and fix. — ] | ] 13:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Wives of polygamists == | |||
| Thanks for cleaning things up! ] 05:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == ] and ] == | |||
| No where in the article does it say that he was practicing polygamy by choice. Given that and the fact he comes from a long line of rulers who kept harums and married the number of woman their religion prescribed for them, makes me ask a question: why single him out? | |||
| Putting the category of ] on his page, when its clearly a non-issue for an article about a ], I believe, is a ]. I meant no personal attack, everyone has biases, I do believe this is a bias. --]]]] 16:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Have you seen this neat wikigadget?== | |||
| I noticed you removing a category from ], and thought you might have use for this. | |||
| You click the plus sign to expand a category | |||
| <categorytree>Categories</categorytree> | |||
| ] 06:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==] & ]== | |||
| Please acquaint yourself with ]. Note also that 3 reverts is not an entitlement, it's an electric fence. Edit warring -- especially unilateral edit warring -- is not good. --] | ] 01:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Scientology as a cult == | |||
| Your first removal of Scientology from the Cult Category was reverted by Modemac, a regular editor of this article, with reasons. He or someone else will I expect revert you again. It would be sensible, not to say polite, to come onto Talk:Scientology and argue your case. | |||
| --] 01:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Personal attacks == | |||
| I am well aware of the page -- and you should be well aware that your opinions and comments will receive the consideration they are due: very little. And as long as passing out free advice is okay, you ought to look into ]: if you want to grind an axe, do it elsewhere. --] | ] 02:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Undiscussed edits == | |||
| You changed the refernce to the ] to alleged cult! | |||
| I appreciate your inspirational, yet uncalled for and undiscussed, edit. I have partially reverted it. There is a simple guideline here on wikkipedia. Discuss changes on ] BEFORE making them. Thanks.] 04:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I see you have reverted my revert. Please discuss your changes on the ] page BEFORE making them. If you revert it again I will not break by re re reverting, this would constitute an ] and I will waste wikki resources by getting in one of those. If do, however, persist on reverting I will start the discussion thread myself. To avoid this type of mixup I would recommend that you make yourself familiar with ] before making further edits. ] 04:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Hi Dr U, I have read your post on my talk page and I respond to it here. I read the ] discussion that you linked to. The box at the top of the page reads: "The result of the discussion was don't delete, don't rename." I don't see where a <u>Result</u> of that conversation was to move articles to alleged cults. It seems to me that points still continue to be debated, I also don't see you posting in said discussion. I know I sound like a broken record here but, major changes to the page will be reverted if you do not first start a thread on the discussion page. | |||
| I look forward to the discussion! ] 05:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think you are missunderstanding. There was a deletion proposal that was rejected, and a few folks suggested changing category name as part of that. '' That'' discussion does not appear on the talk page, only the result of the vote. What does appear on the talk page is lots of dialouge that that category was '''''untidy''''', and in need of cleanup. That's all I was doing. Most of the articles were on topics related to cults, but not themselves categorized as cults. I gave them a subcategory. I did not move all, or even the majority of articles into the subcategory:alleged cults, but I did move the ones refering to organizations there. The parent category is still intact, so this is not a subterfuge to get rid of the category, just a way of reorganizing it so its easier to find a certain type of articles, while maintaining NPOV as well as I could. ] 05:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC) | |||