Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:57, 12 September 2006

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. WBardwin 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 Mormon pioneer article that might help me begin on our discussed effort on the Mormon Battalion. Your eye is welcome on those edits. Best wishes. WBardwin 05:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your improvements to the John Van Cott page. If you have more info about him, please share. He is an ancestor of mine. Isaac Crumm 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 Isaac Crumm 05:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:NickUdall.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:NickUdall.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Misplaced Pages articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page 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 "my contributions" 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 criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. 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. --Trödel 01:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good - I'll think about the martyr vs domestic dispute some more too :) --Trödel 01:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

List of United States Presidents by military rank

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. — MrDolomite | Talk 13:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Wives of polygamists

Thanks for cleaning things up! Shamrox 05:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Akbar and Polygamy

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 polygamy on his page, when its clearly a non-issue for an article about a Mughal emperor, I believe, is a bias. I meant no personal attack, everyone has biases, I do believe this is a bias. --hydkat 16:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Have you seen this neat wikigadget?

I noticed you removing a category from Creationism, and thought you might have use for this. You click the plus sign to expand a category

User:Pedant 06:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Lyndon LaRouche & WP:3RR

Please acquaint yourself with this rule. Note also that 3 reverts is not an entitlement, it's an electric fence. Edit warring -- especially unilateral edit warring -- is not good. --Calton | Talk 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. --Hartley Patterson 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 this: if you want to grind an axe, do it elsewhere. --Calton | Talk 02:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Undiscussed edits

You changed the refernce to the church of the subgenius 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 Talk:Church_of_the_SubGenius BEFORE making them. Thanks.Defraggler 04:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I see you have reverted my revert. Please discuss your changes on the Talk:Church_of_the_SubGenius page BEFORE making them. If you revert it again I will not break by re re reverting, this would constitute an Misplaced Pages:Edit_war 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 Misplaced Pages:List_of_policies before making further edits. Defraggler 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 Category_talk:Cults 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 Result 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! Defraggler 05:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Warning

First up: I am all for WP:BLP. Unsourced or poorly sourced material should indeed be removed. But where it is sourced, regardless of how the subject feels about it, it can stay in. Neutral point of view does not mean sympathetic point of view. Your campaign to remove the "cult" category from groups and individuals widely identified as cultists, such as the Cuurch of Scientology (pretty much the dictionary definition of a cult) is disruptive, I would ask you to please take your concerns to the Talk pages and not unilaterally make changes against consensus. "Alleged cults" is weasel words, and offers no protection in law anyway - either they are cults, identified as such by named authorities, or they are not.

Second, blanking your talk page of evidence of controversial edits is also considered disruptive. You are at liberty to archive your talk page, and User:Werdnabot offers a handy and easily configured way of doing this automatically. But you should not remove current and recent conversations which are related to the fundamental purpose of building an encyclopaedia. Many of the comments you blanked were indeed related to building an encyclopaedia, and their presence here helps others to understand your position on subjects i which you are currently active.

Overall I support anybody who insists on rigorous sourcing. That is never a problem. But you must take things to Talk and you must respect consensus. Right now you are displaying many of the signs of tendentious editing, and as a result you are probably making it harder for yourself to achieve your aims. Guy 10:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)