User talk:ARTEST4ECHO/Archive/2010

January 2010 - April 2010

January 2010

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Religious emblems programs (Boy Scouts of America)‎

I'm not sure that Duty to God is part of the BSA religious emblems programs. See Talk:Religious emblems programs (Boy Scouts of America)‎#LDS Duty to God Award. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 19:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• You are correct. My apolgieze. With cubs they are one and the same. (faith in god)ARTEST4ECHO (talk) 16:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 16:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

February 2010

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Olive branch

As a pledge of good-faith, I would like to listen to your reasons why this specific information needs to be in this particular article. You seem very adamant about it, and I'm curious as to why. In fairness, my only reason for it not being there is because it didn't happen at a SeaWorld-owned park ... that's all. Don't wanna obscure it or cover it up (and no, I have no connection to SeaWorld or any of its previous or current companies, etc.). --McDoobAU93 (talk) 16:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I do appreciate your gesture. Yes I agree that it is a fact that "it didn't happen at a SeaWorld-owned park". I have read all of your comments, however, I do not agree with your conclusions in both style and content. I believe I have made my arguments very clear and that I have made some very significant compromises that should have lead to an agreement. However, you obviously disagree with me, which is your right, as it is mine to disagree with you. However, there come a time that continued discussion between people will not solve the issue and only inflames things. I admit that this is inappropriate. Simple put, I feel that we have different styles approaching our editing and what is and isn’t the appropriate way to approach conflicts. This means there is little hope we will reach an agreement between us. We are oil and water. Therefore, I have chosen not to discuss this anymore with you despite your gesture. I think that continued input from Cla68 and SpikeJones and others is the only way to resolve this. When the group as a whole comes to an agreement I will respect it.ARTEST4ECHO (talk) 17:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough and agreed. Whatever consensus decides will be unquestionably supported. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 17:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for this intrusion, but I think I have come up with a compromise that you might approve of. Please take a look at the article's talk page and give your opinions. Thank you. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 17:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion and vote of confidence, and for your overall conduct in this debate. I think you have the project's best interests at heart, and I look forward to working with you on other articles in the future, should our paths cross again. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 18:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I thank you for coming to a compromise. I have asked that the page be unprotected, so that the change can be made. If you feel that the page needs protection still (even if it’s for a reason unrelated to our discussion), I am happy to have you remove my request. Also I have made a suggestion, and only a suggestion, on the talk page that I would appreciate you considering. However, as I said on the talk page, I can live with your compromise as is, so I leave it to you to include or not include my suggestion.ARTEST4ECHO (talk) 18:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I posted a note on WP:RPP concurring that the protection can be lifted. There is another discussion going on regarding naming the trainer in the section, but it's been fine. As to your suggestion, I commented on it and wouldn't have a problem at all, but it's more up to the editors over at Sealand to set up (if you happen to be one of those, so much the better). --McDoobAU93 (talk) 18:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I noticed the name discussion and that is why I thought you might like to leave it protected. I have my opinion on that subject, but it is not biased on any Wikipedia policy or standard practice, so I have stayed out of that discussion. Ironically I agree that the name should not be in the article, but not necessarily your reasoning why (but I havent looked much at the sections you named so I don't disagree ether), but ultimately we come to the same place. ARTEST4ECHO (talk) 18:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

On a side note, I would like to say, in all sincerity, that it was never my intention to modify th article despite a "cease fire". I honestly was (weather I did it in the right or wrong way and I'm sure we don't agree about that), trying to modify the article only to allow discussion on our conflict or to try to reach a compromise, whether it appeared otherwise or not. That was not my intention and I’m sorry it came across that way. ARTEST4ECHO (talk) 20:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

No need to apologize, but I'll gladly accept it. Water under the bridge as far as I'm concerned, my friend. In the same mode, I apologize for my being short-sighted, and not stepping back long enough to find a potential solution until now. I'm all for providing people with the information they're looking for ... I think that's what we all want. We just had different ways of doing it, and now we've found something that I think everyone will be happy with. As content disputes go, this has been a focused and generally good one, really; downright civil when compared to some classic donnybrooks on content where the arguments just get silly. I certainly won't be nominating this one for inclusion there, because it wasn't lame at all. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 20:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I had to bookmark the lame page. Never seen it before, some are very funny!! I'll have to spend some time reading them. HAAA ARTEST4ECHO (talk) 20:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's another one regarding content disputes that you'll probably enjoy, too. Again, this one don't qualify, which is good. :) --McDoobAU93 (talk) 21:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

April 2010

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

List of Sects in LDS Movement Article

I just wanted to stop by and thank you for your excellent, hard work on the List of sects in the Latter Day Saint movement article. I know you indicated that you had tried to initiate a discussion on the talk page about the different groups and their divisions/subdivisions. As the person who initially created those divisions/subdivisions in the article, I should have gotten back with you, and I'm sorry I didn't. I've been bogged down in an independent, non-Wikipedia writing project, and that's consumed pretty much all of my time and energy.

I'm going to end this transmission here, in case you're monitoring the article and wondering where the promised explanation for my reverts on your talk page is. I'm going to write that right now, below; please give me just a few minutes, and I'll have it for you. - Ecjmartin (talk) 21:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

No need to make an explanation. I am perfectly happy with you listed it. I just figured that since some of the groups listed did not come threw the "Brigham Young" line or even resided in the "Rocky Mountains" They needed to be separate, but to be honest, it really isn't a big deal.--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 21:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I just saw your reply when I went to post what I've written below. Though what you wrote seems to resolve this, I'll go ahead and send what I wrote below, anyway, just so you can see it. Please feel free to get back to me with any comments you may have, and thanks again for your contributions! - Ecjmartin (talk) 21:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay: the reverts. "Rocky Mountain Saints" and "Prairie Saints" are two general classifications used by some scholars to divide the various factions within the Restoration movement. "RMS" describes those sects who trace their heritage and authority ultimately back to Brigham Young's church, regardless of their current/past geographical locations. "PS", on the other hand, describes basically everyone else. I've never cared for those two designators, as they are far too general in nature (as you have observed). And, as you have observed, the "RMS" can be misleading (as can the "PS" designator, too!), in so far as geography is concerned. I'd be all for getting rid of them altogether, except that many scholars use these two terms, and thus I felt a need to retain them here--while further subdividing them. I did add a brief note of explanation to the text, indicating that "RMS" and "PS" don't necessarily refer to the geographical location of all sects within those groupings, but rather to the location of their original parent organizations (as shown in the table).

In my own personal studies on the subject, as well as in Shields' authoritative book, a different scheme of subdivision is employed, one that categorizes sects and churches by their general provenance: since Mormonism is an authority-driven religion, one can categorize sects appropriately by tracing their authority back to a single common individual (Brigham Young, Joseph Smith III, James Strang, Charles Thompson, Sidney Rigdon, etc.) who in turn claimed their authority directly from Joseph Smith. I have found that while sects in each of these factional groups (as I call them) may differ in many ways, all share the same heritage, the same ultimate source of authority, and many of the same basic beliefs. I'm sure that I haven't told you anything here you don't already know, by the way!

As far as the polygamist/"fundamentalist" sects go, however, this can cause a problem. Technically, they all belong in the Brighamite Factional Group, as all ultimately trace their heritage/authority to Brigham Young. However, because there are so many, I arbitrarily created the "Polygamist Factional Group" subheader so that they might be subdivided from the non-polygamous Brighamite churches. I'm not saying it was the best way to go about it, but I couldn't see any other option other than simply leaving everything under the "Brighamite" heading. I figured subdividing it between polygamists and non-polygamists would be best--though I'd certainly be more than open to any alternatives you might suggest!

Again, I apologize for not getting back with you earlier. Please take care, and let me know any ideas you might have! - Ecjmartin (talk) 21:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I just re-read your post, and I noticed you said not ALL of the polygamist sects trace their authority via Brigham Young. Might I ask which these are, and if so, where they claim their authority from? If their authority comes via another factional group (CofC, Hedrickite, Strangite, etc.), then we need to list them there. If they've simply taken their authority out of thin air, as it were, then we need to create separate factional groups for them. Please get back with me, if you would, on this, as I was not previously aware that this was the case! Thanks! - Ecjmartin (talk) 21:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

First there is no need to apologize. Again, I am perfectly happy with the way it is. I am the first to admit that I am not an expert on the subject, so if I got it wrong, I'm not going to get bent about of shape when people correct me.

Anyway, my ultimate goal was to clarify the “Mormon Fundamentalist” Wolley line vs. “Mormon Fundamentalist” "in general” question. Then to "citation" the page, so that some of these groups that no one has ever heard of can be deleted without such a long wait and discussions. I have seen at least 5 of these “Fake” groups (ULDS, The Brighamite Church of Christ, Latter Day Church of Christ the Lamb, etc) in the last year or so and they stay on this list WAY to long. It drives me nuts. Up until now there were no citations on any of the groups, so when people put on "Fake" groups it takes forever to get rid of them. With citations "real" editors can get ride of them a whole lot faster.

I don't think I can come up with a better way to list them, AND I do agree they need to be separated somehow, so don't see big need to change anything on my account. Again, I am not an expert here, but what I was referring to (simply to discuses here) was it is my understanding is that some groups believe there authority comes around Brigham Young. See the chart at the bottom of www.mormonfundamentalism.com. Like the LeBaron claim is threw Benjamin F. Johnson and the council of the fifty formed by Joseph Smith. TLC made it up on there own and I have no idea where "The Church of Christ: "Of Latter Day Saints"", who are in Indiana, believe there authority comes from. What I get from the chart is that only those threw “Wolley” claim a line threw Brigham Young. Now to play devils advocate, I believe that some of these groups, like the LeBaron’s and TLC believe that Brigham Young the prophet of the “Church” but claim “Priesthood” authority around him, which clouds the water even more.

Given all that, I am content to leave it be. LOL --ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 22:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I can definitely understand. In terms of heritage, if nothing else, LeBarron et al come out of Brigham Young's line, if only in the most general sense of the word--at least in my opinion. It all gets very confusing, and while this is probably not the best scheme out there, it seems to be the best I can come up with (or anyone else, it would seem) at present. Thanks again for your contributions! - Ecjmartin (talk) 23:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes I agree that it is the "best scheme out there". Your notes got me thinking on the way home from work, and I realized that there was a big flaw in my idea of splitting the "Polygamist" groups any way. That would then introduce a whole new problem. Some of the other groups in other sections are or were polygamist also. Like the James Strange (Strangite) became a polygamist. If you read some of there websites they permit it “when god allows it”, but at this time he doesn’t. So would he be in the "Polygamist" group or the Strangite" group or somewhere else????? More confusion!! Anyway, not that it matters, you got me thinking and convinced me that it was actually a bad idea, and not one that I just didn’t care that much about. Thanks for your correction and compliment. --ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 12:09, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar Merge

Barnstar

Thanks very much for your compliments, and for your barnstar! And I, in turn, to honor your wonderful contributions to this same article, award you:

		The Categorisation Barnstar
		Awarded to ARTEST4ECHO for your outstanding work on the List of sects in the Latter Day Saint movement article. Your work in categorizing the Rocky Mountain Saint churches has taken this article to a whole new level of usability. Thanks for all your hard work! - Ecjmartin (talk) 00:10, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

You mentioned James Strang; many years ago, when I was active in the Restoration Movement (1985-95; this event occurred circa 86-88), I became disaffected with the Utah LDS church, and began looking at several of the smaller factions to see if maybe one of them was the "true church". I spent 2-3 years studying Strangism with High Priest Bruce Flanders (now deceased--RIP), and while ultimately I chose to reject Mr. Strang's claims, I still find him (then and now) to be one of the most fascinating individuals I've ever read about. I can definitely see what you were saying, above; Strang belongs in his own factional group, as he was one of the three principle claimnants to Joseph's prophetic mantle in 1844 (the others being, of course, Brigham Young [representing the Twelve], and Sidney Rigdon). While I gave several years of attention and study to the Prairie Saint churches (Cutlerite, CofC/RLDS, Temple Lot, Elijah Message, Fettingite, Strangite, Bickertonite, Restoration Branches, etc.), I know next to nothing about the non-Utah LDS "Brighamite" churches (as I never looked at them after rejecting Mr. Young's claims). So what you guys did was definitely needed; you've taken this article to a whole new level of usability. Thanks again, and this barnstar is definitely well-deserved! - Ecjmartin (talk) 22:41, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

First I do appreciate the Banstar and the thanks, but I really can't take credit for the categorizing the Rocky Mountain Saint churches, that really was COGDEN(talk). Although he and I did talk about it here and there, he did ALL of that work. It only looks like I helped since at the same time I was citing all of the churches and removing the ones that couldn't be shown to exist. However, I am grateful for the compliment.

Second, I wasn’t implying that Strang needed to be moved and I’m sorry if that what came across. I was only using him as an example of the big flaw in my own edit choice that you opened my eyes to. If we had spilt off the Polygamist Factional groups from the Brigham Young line as I did, it would open a hornet’s nest of “Well do these groups belong there since at one time they believed in polygamy, even though they don't come threw Utah" and “If they stopped practicing polygamy (like Confederate Nations of Israel) but still believe in other “Fundamentalist” ideas do they belong in one of the other. It would have made a mess of things.

In a way I am starting out on the same "studying" path you have done for several years. However, mine is a family history study and a dissatisfaction with the (I hate to use it but) censored information I get threw family and "Official Utah" channels, rather than any group’s specific claims. I realize that "Family History" isn't what WP is about, but my direct great times several-Grandfather Broke with Joseph smith over a “Matter of money” and joined with Isaac Russell and his Alston Church. Later he broke with him and wandered between some other groups, but, when he decided that he needed to be a polygamist, he ended back up in Utah while about half his kids disowned him, stayed behind and joined the RLDS formation.

However, most of my information is down threw the Utah Church, as my direct family came down threw that line, so the Prairie Saint church’s part is really a new realm to me, which is why I am really enjoy reading the stuff you and a few other have put so much time into.--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 13:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments! Regardless of who did what between yourself and COGDEN, I think both of you deserved it. Your great>>>>grandfather's story sounds intriguing; is your family aware of the specific incident/issues involved, or has it just been passed down as "a matter of money?" I had a great>>>>>uncle who served in the Union Army during the Civil War, where he died at Gettysburg. Some time before that battle, he sat down and wrote a letter to his brother in Michigan, in which he ridiculed "Uncle" Abraham Lincoln (as he called him) and basically indicated his belief that the entire war was being mismanaged, and a lot of men were dying for nothing at the hands of utterly incompetent leaders and officers (a common view among Union soldiers of the time!). He also indicated his opposition to the recently-announced Emancipation Proclamation, which is pretty interesting (and sad!), coming from a Union soldier! Yet, he stayed with his unit until his death on the second day of the great Gettysburg battle. A tragic tale--one repeated far too often during that conflict, and since!

The Prairie Saint groups are very interesting; often, scholars and others tend to focus on Utah LDS and maybe RLDS/Community of Christ; the latter often like to act as though they're the only non-LDS faction out there worth looking at (and they're not nearly as interesting, to me, as some of the smaller factions!)! I spent time with the Cutlerites, RLDS and Temple Lot; I also investigated Strangites, Zion's Branch, Elijah Message, Fettingite (Bronsonite), Fettingite (DeWolf), Restoration Branches, Restoration Church of Jesus Christ of LDS, and a few others. Each has its own unique history, and its own unique "spin" on Joseph Smith's gospel and message. As you progress further in your studies, I'm sure you'll find each one quite interesting to read about. Best of luck in your studies and ponderings, and thanks again for your contributions! - Ecjmartin (talk) 23:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I too find all these different groups very interesting, not just the RLDS and LDS church’s. Our information regarding the money comes from a letter he sent to his daughter in Canada that was found in the community of Christ archives, since about half his kids joined that group. He only references to loaning JS money and that JS wouldn't or couldn't pay it back and that he broke with JS over "A matter of money". Although I have no proof, the loans timing is very near but before the Kirtland Safety Society, so I highly suspect it was in relation to that, but we just don’t know. Later we have a letter that says he and JS worked things out, but he choose not to move to Nauvoo with the saints in 1839 when JS was force to flee. That is when he joined the Alston Church and was finally excommunicated. He later rejoined the saint in Utah sometime after 1855, so my ancestors weren’t part of the Pioneer movements in the late 1840’s.

The sad thing is that he was there during a large part of JS time, but he keep letting money stuff get in the way. He was called on a mission in D&C 52, but didn't go because of Money. He didn't leave for Nauvoo because he had an issue of Money with JS. I wonder what his life would have been like had money not gotten in the way so much.--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 16:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar thanks

I don't know what to say, other than I am honored to receive the award. And you are no less deserving ... as such:

		The Barnstar of Diplomacy
		For putting aside differences and working together for the betterment of Wikipedia, please accept my thanks and this award. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 23:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I saw the Half Barnstar award, which I think would perfectly fit this situation as well, but the type of barnstar is only one part of the award. The main part is the reason it's being awarded in the first place. You earned it, and I look forward to working with you again in the future. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 23:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks from me too for the barnstar. I've seen your edits and have been impressed. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Merged Response

Thank you all very much for the compliments. Whoever came up with this Barnstar thing had a great idea. As I scrolled down the Banstars pages, when each of these three Bandstars popped up, you four users came to mind in particular. I think is fun to be able to send little thanks to those you think are disserving.

Again, Thanks for your compliments. I'm still pretty new in WP, comparatively speaking, so it's nice when people notice.--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 13:16, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

May 2010 - August 2010

May 2010

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

File redirects

Please don't blank file redirects like File:DCD SL.JPG‎. After fixing any references to the redirect in articles that may exist, they can be left as is. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive202#General question about what to do with redirects after renaming files. Thanks. --Geniac (talk) 22:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry I thought I had fixed that. I realized my mistake later and went back to fix them. My apologies and I also fix File:DCD SL.JPG‎ now.--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 13:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

June 2010

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Centennial Park group

Fine work on that article sir. I dare say you beat me to it! Keep up the good work. Angrybeerman (talk) 23:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. It's good to be notice for something nice for once. Sometimes I feel like I should stop editing Wikipedia. You make one "vote" and you get accused of being a sockpuppet or having a conflict of interest. Then you make good faith changes and you have "a bad attitude". It very gets tiring sometimes. I even lose sleep over it sometimes, and I have more important things in life to lose sleep over.--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 12:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 02:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thank you very much for the barnstar. I was glad to help. Best of luck with the article. Finetooth (talk) 21:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

New photos

Awesome job with your changes to the image gallery size and contents (new added photos) in List of sects in the Latter Day Saint movement. Every new image makes the article Thanks for your great work! As I said in the article talk page, I'm planning (God-willing) to get some photos of various Restoration churches around Independence this weekend, including some bigger ones of the CoC Temple, Temple Lot and Cutlerite churches. Anyway, thanks again for all your excellent work! - Ecjmartin (talk) 00:13, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Speedy delete request

Artist4Echo, I began work yesterday evening on an article on the Church of Christ with the Elijah Message (Assured Way of the Lord), asking that I be given a day or two to get back and put more info into it before anyone "speedy-delete" tagged it. Nonetheless, some person (whose userpage reveals a tendency to speedy-delete articles) tagged it for speedy-delete anyway. Would it be possible for you go over there and "decline" that speedy-delete, if you think that would be appropriate? I've added enough info that it should be clear why it's "notable", now. If you can't, no problem, but I just thought I'd ask. Thanks! - Ecjmartin (talk) 14:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I have made a request with the deletion admin for this article to be undeleted. See User talk:SchuminWeb#Request for undeletion. As a worst case way out you should be able to have the deleted article userfied so that you can finish preparing it in you user space. __meco (talk) 21:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I just went on ahead (as I told Meco already) and created a new article to replace it: Church of Christ (Assured Way). I don't think the person deleting it, nor the person nominating it for deletion in the first place, even bothered to read it. If they had, they could never have deleted it due to "not explaining in the article why the organization was noteworthy" (or words to that effect). Oh well. I appreciated Meco's efforts and input, and yours as well, and I hope this newest attempt survives. After all I've included, I can't see why it shouldn't. Have a great day! - Ecjmartin (talk) 02:16, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, some other idiot is proposing it for deletion again, on "lack of notability" grounds. I've challenged him on his talk page to tell me (a) if he even read the article at all to begin with, and (b) if he'd do me the honor of telling me WHY it's "not notable". As I told him, we can write articles on stupid idiot Footballers whom nobody's ever heard of or cares about (not to mention some of the other garbage I've seen in this encyclopedia), but a distinct religious denomination within the LDS movement (clearly identifiable as such in the article itself) is somehow "not notable". I just don't get it. - Ecjmartin (talk) 02:50, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Non-free images and List of sects in the Latter Day Saint movement

I've removed four images from the gallery at List_of_sects_in_the_Latter_Day_Saint_movement#Founders_of_Latter_Day_Saint_factions, per WP:NFG and WP:NFCC #1. This display of images is unnecessary, as each respective article for these individuals hosts the non-free image in question. Also, the use of non-free images in a gallery such as this fails WP:NFCC #8. As such, I've removed the fair use rationales for the four images for this article. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 16:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

July 2010

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

"Mormonism and Islam" rating

Hey, Artist! Just a quick question here: I've been mostly away from Wikipedia for several days, and I noticed upon my return that you'd recently rated the Mormonism and Islam article as "Start" class. Having put a considerable amount of time and effort into this particular article, I was taken a bit aback by your rating; while maybe not "GA" ready just yet (if only because of the reference formatting style, which I know nothing about), I felt it was a solid "B" class article, for sure. Might I ask you what prompted you to rate the article so low? I'm not really complaining here; I'd just like to know what you felt needed fixing on the article so that I can get that taken care of. Thanks!! Hope all is well with you. Cheers! - Ecjmartin (talk) 00:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I put it as Start class only because it was already rated that in WikiProject Islam. That is what I have been doing in my time unrelated to “List of sects:”. Going threw articles assessed by other projects and matching there assessments, or marking “Stub” articles. I was not actually assessing it. So I was going to request an assessment. However, I see that you did it back in June. It is still listed there, and I don’t know why someone hadn't already assessed this page. I put a note at Help Wanted requesting that someone with better English and Wikipedia skills then me to give it a proper assessment--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 12:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I was just curious; no intent to complain here at all. I've been a bit disappointed that none of the three projects I've requested assessments from have rated it, yet, but that's okay with me now. I used to be really big on this assessment thing, but now I'm just glad if any article I work on gets to "B" class. It's too much time and trouble to get it beyond there, unless it's something I really care about. - Ecjmartin (talk) 14:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Mormonism_and_Islam#WikiProject_article_quality_grade--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 15:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

• Move to my userpage--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 13:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your awards! When I saw this "teamwork barnstar," I couldn't think of anyone who deserved it more. Thanks so much for all your help on these two (and other) articles! - Ecjmartin (talk) 23:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 13:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Lino Brocka

I noticed you just removed Lino Brocka from the LDS WikiProject. Why do you consider that this person isn't relevant for the project? __meco (talk) 20:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The scope of the {{LDSproject}} is "elements of the [LDS]movement, Mormonism, Latter Day Saint history, doctrine, practices, and other cultural effects inspired by Joseph Smith, Jr..". Just being a member of the church doesn’t mean he is related to those elements. For example Gladys Knight is a member, but her music isn't LDS related, so she is not part of the {{LDSproject}}. Reading over Brocka's page, the only mentioning of the LDS movement is a broken link the "References, external links and further readings". Also, he's not listed in any LDS categories. So, I felt that there was no reason to include him in the {{LDSproject}}. However, if you know something more about this guy that I do, that makes you feel he needs to be included, I will differ to your opinion. However, may I suggest adding him directly to the "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints work group" by tagging him with "{{ChristianityWikiProject|class=|importance=|latter-day-saint-movement=no|LDS-work-group=yes|LDS-importance=}}" Since the scope of that project has more to do with the “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” and not the overall movement.--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 21:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

One of the articles in the external links section is called "Lino Brocka: Legendary Filmmaker, First LDS Convert in the Philippines". That sounds kind of significant, doesn't it? __meco (talk) 22:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Except that this link is broken and unverifiable. Additionally this person doesn’t sound like an LDS member. However, again if you know something more about this guy that I do, that makes you feel he needs to be included, I will differ to your opinion. --ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 11:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Additionally is Solon Borglum a member? All it mentions is that he is the son of a member. He isn't in the "American latter-day Saints" Category, suggesting that perhaps he wasn't. You put him in the LDS wikiproject.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

August 2010

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Nephite Church of Christ

Hello.

The Crimson Path Society, Inc[1]. which is our healing ministry, was granted public charity status by the IRS. Guidestar Report [2] & IRS: [3] I doubt that the IRS would recognize the healing ministry of a non-existing church. The Crimson Path is based on the book - The Crimson Path IBSN 978-1588983640 or 1588983641 which was published back in 2001. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 20:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

You don't need to convince me. I think the list is correct the way it is.--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 20:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your support Prsaucer1958 (talk) 21:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Nice work

Nice work lately on List of Latter Day Saint practitioners of plural marriage. It's a page I've always wanted to do more on but have neglected. It's nice to see someone has picked up the slack. Thanks. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 12:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you much. I to have always wanted to do more work on that page by I had been concentrating on the List of Sect for so long I kept putting it off.--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 12:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Astronomical bodies in...

I'm not sure it's even worth bothering trying to save it. The proposer complains about notability, which is almost entirely subjective. He says that it violates the original synthesis policy, which shows that he's going around tagging pages for deletions without even understanding the policies he alleges are being violated. Meaning he's incompetent or acting in bad faith. If it's the former, he won't be able to reason with me and if it's the latter he won't be willing to. And apparently the article depends too much on one source. It's both using multiple sources to derive new ideas not present in either, and too dependent on a single source. Wow. I'm not even sure what to make of this. Especially when no two sources had even been used in conjunction on the page. Anyway, I've embarked on some damage control. I've backed up the Unarian planet information in my Userspace and will use it in a different article called Unarian cosmology and mythology, which will hopefully avoid spurious claims of synthesis and non-notability. And the article needed to be made anyway. I'm grateful you've tried to help and any assistance in trying to save the article is appreciated but probably futile. Thanks for contacting me. Abyssal (talk) 17:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I remove the tags he put on and added to the discussion page a new section explaining why. Remember, the tag says "You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason." You obviously have "a reason", and I agree. I think as author, you know much more about this subject then I do, so if you wish to better explain what you did here on the talk page, I will have no objection to you removing and replacing my comments. I will then put my 2-cents in.

Just remember to WP:Assume good faith. I agree that User:Twinsday should have notified you A.S.A.P. However, the first time I listed an article for deletion, I failed to notify the author, and someone had to tell me I to do it. If User:Twinsday re-tags the page, he should put it under {{AfD}}, so that an official discussion on the subject can happen. If he doesn’t it will look bad for him, and I can only assume steps can be taken.--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 18:17, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again. Abyssal (talk) 19:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Template:Community of Christ infobox

I added a nice SVG image of the CofC seal and nameplate to the Infobox template. However, because the infobox is not on the article proper, a bot has removed it from the Template. I am curious why it was decided to put the Infobox in a template and then reference it from several pages? Most Church or company articles I have seen have only had the Infobox on the main article and not on every related article. I am wondering if the Infobox could be moved out of the Template space and reside only on the main CofC article so the image could remain? Thoughts? GreenwoodKL (talk) 21:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

To be 100% honest, I don't remember. What I think the reason was that I was using the exact same information on this page, so I made a template. However, this was a long time ago and was the first time I worked with templates, so I probably did it wrong. I am more then willing to admit that your are probably correct, that is shouldn't be done this way. Please feel free to change it the way it should be.--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 12:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

September 2010 - December 2010

September 2010

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Help a newbie

Hi. I noticed you've tagged a bunch of images that User:Hubel458 uploaded and put notices on his talk page. He's a pretty new editor and is probably going to be unable to comply with what your asking without some help. Is it possible you could clarify for him or maybe try to walk him through fixing one? I'm hoping the photo's are his own, and it's just something that can be fixed. If not he'll need to have the difference clarified. I'm not super familiar with how to fix that stuff, so your assistance is appreciated. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 19:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I will be right with you to help out.--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 19:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Shall I leave a note on his talk page that you can help him? Or you'll do that? AliveFreeHappy (talk) 19:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I got stuck somewhere else. If you go to File:.700 Hubel Express Cartridges.jpg it says the image came from Ed Hubel [4]]. However, if you go to the main website page [www.gunownerstv.com], it says nothing about Ed Hubel being the copyright holder. This then becomes systemic as all his images claim the same thing. Additionally he doesn’t have any description as how he took this images release. So what I will do is fix one of them correctly, making the assumption that he holds the copyrights to the images, and explain that he needs to fix the other. Does that sound like a plan?--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 19:48, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that's the way to go. Let's teach him how to do it. He seems to be learning in other areas, if you look at his history. Just make sure to clarify he needs to only be doing it for his own images. Thanks again. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 19:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, sometimes you get into a grove and do things on auto pilot without noticing that people are actually trying to do it right instead of just tagging it PD-self so they don't have to try at all.--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 19:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't I know it. I recently have run into a few newbies who were doing stuff I'd consider crazy. But one of them is really taking off and is very productive. I'm hoping that this user will also branch out. So far he's in a very narrow area, but hopefully when those two articles are finished we can keep him moving on other stuff. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 19:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

OK. I left User:Hubel458 to come here to read this thread. What I was fix File:.700 Hubel Express Cartridges.jpg the best I could.

I guess in the most basic term the problem was that he didn't make it clear that he took the photo himself and didn't just steal it off the website then say “it’s mine”. However, he dose need to supply a date the photo was take, even if it "Taken in 2008" if it was in 2008. And if the website isn't his, then he need to explain by it is that the image is his and not the websites.

I took off the tags on the other files. However, he will run into this same issue from some other editors if he doesn’t fix those A.S.A.P He is welcome to just copy and past what I did. I would do it myself, but I have to leave WP for the day. RIGHT NOW!!! I'm LATE.--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 20:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I took pictures Had them put on my site, by person who set up site for me years ago, site, my site is www.gunownerstv.com I own site and pics.(Hubel458 (talk) 20:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC))

Excellent, that's what I was guessing. So do you know what to do based on the sample ARTEST4ECHO left for you? AliveFreeHappy (talk) 22:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of LDSGAinfoListTop

A tag has been placed on LDSGAinfoListTop, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing no content to the reader. Please note that external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article don't count as content. Moreover, please add more verifiable sources, not only 3rd party sources. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. role^player 13:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Re LDSGAinfoListTop

I did wonder if it was supposed to be a template! -- role^player 13:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I was actually tagging it myself but you beat me to it.--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 13:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I should really be working, but this is kind of addictive... -- role^player 13:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind at all. I to should be working, but am addicted. We may need to start a support group.--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 13:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

What like Wikipedia:Wikipedians anonymous? -- role^player 13:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Sound good to me. Here are the 12 steps

1. We admitted we were powerless over Wikipedia.
2. Came to believe that no power greater than Wikipedia could restore us to sanity.
3. Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of Wikipedia.
4. Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of our Wikipedia edits.
5. Admitted to Wikipedia and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs.
6. Were entirely ready to have Wikipedia remove all these defects of character.
7. Humbly asked Wikipedia to remove our shortcomings.
8. Made a list of all Wikipedians we had harmed, and became willing to make amends to them all.
9. Made direct amends to such Wikipedians wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others.
10. Continued to take personal inventory of our Wikipedia edits and when we were wrong promptly admitted it.
11. Sought through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with Wikipedia.

--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 13:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

You're desperate to create it now aren't you? I'm like that little demon sitting on your shoulder egging you on! Mwahahahahaaaa!!! -- role^player 13:31, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

HAHAHAHAH!!! Now I better really get back to work.--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 13:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Latter Day Saints

Thank you for the barn star. I was looking at your user page to figure out if I should call you sir, madam or otherwise when I responded to your message, when I noticed that you are a member of the Church of Latter Day Saints. We hear a lot about those in my line of study (amateur genealogy - I've been doing it for 17 years - see this page for example) but I've never actually spoken to one in the flesh. So to speak. Are all LDS members required to trace their family tree? If so where do yours come from? -- role^player 13:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I didn’t get back to you sooner. I am also using Wikipedia at work again, but it's been a little busy.

I would have to say that I doubt that you have "never actually spoken to one in the flesh" (unless your a hermit) since there are about 180,000 LDS members in the UK. The UK was the first country other then the US that had LDS members in it. You probably just didn't know that they are members. Heck, I worked with a guy at Boeing for almost a year before I found out he was also LDS. The average members of the LDS church aren’t that entire different then any other person. I think the only big exception to that, in your case, it that we don't drink tea. So if someone turns you down of a cup of tea on "Religious" grounds, you might be talking to an LDS member. FYI: One of my local ward (a local congregation) members is actually on a mission right now in the UK.

As to your question about Family trees. Are we "required", NO. Genealogy isn't something that everyone MUST do to be a member of the church. It not like believe in Jesus Christ, which if your don't you aren't LDS. Are we asked to, "Yes". We believe that connecting ourselves to our ancestors threw Temple work is important. However, if I had to guess, I would say that maybe 5% of the members in my local ward (a local congregation) do genealogy actively. Some people just don't see it as important or don't know how to do it. Others like myself, have the problem that ours has been done to a point where we can't seem to go further back. My family tree was done before I was born back to 400 b.c. I have dabbled in it, but mainly to see some of the weird stuff that was found. Like I am a descendent of "The bastard child of roman emperor ...." I love how is official name is "The bastard child". Also I have a woman in my family in the late 1800's who was married twice in England. Then joined the church and move to the US and Married again. This is all well and good until you find out she never got divorce. I have a polyandrist in my family, something which I very few LDS members can say.--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 17:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 17:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey! (smiles)

I put it to a redirect page that leads to that article. Maybe I shouldn't have though. (The redirect article is List of Mormon sects. (Mormon sects, List of). The reason I did it is cos I wanted the Mormon studies category to have various articles grouped together under the letter-heading of "M"...--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 13:56, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, that makes since. You just got me confused (which isn't really that hard). I honestly thought your addition was a good one, but when you removed it I just didn't understand why.--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 15:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Check for copy right release

Hi ARTEST4ECHO, Are you able to check if Wiki received a release for the pic for the .458 Lott from either Werner Booysen or Koos Badenhorst? I am unsure how to check if it was copy released to Wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DeusImperator (talk • contribs) 04:51, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how to check, but I don't think you have to. If the e-mail was sent to WP:OTRS they will tell you that they are ether going to update the tag or delete the image. After I think 3 months they will tag the image as failed to get the e-mail. However, the last time I did it, it took 3 months for them to approve the image, so don't expect it to happen anytime soon. If you want to see if someone is willing to look it up sooner, thy leaving a message with one of the OTRS Administrators--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 14:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

File:5pm screenshot.gif

File:5pm screenshot.gif - I took the screenshot. It's from the open public beta of the 5pm software. Emailed support[at]5pmweb.com and they allowed me to use it on Wikipedia, as well as any other screenshots of 5pm. Let me know how else I can help. Disarea (talk) 12:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

edited the copyright info, following other examples on Wikipedia Disarea (talk) 15:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Look good now.--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 14:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Anton von Zach.jpg

I got your note. I thought the public domain cut off was 70 years. I've actually spent time trying to unravel the copyright rules which are rather confusing. There are a large number of prints of people and events of the early 19th century already uploaded. I strongly suspect that the vast number, in fact, predate 1890. But I can't prove this. I upload using "I own it" (accounting for the wrong upload tag - sorry) then change the source and author, because I haven't figured out the right way to do this. I haven't knowingly uploaded a picture that I believe is more recent than about 1900 (unless mine). And I provide the source (web or book) so that someone else can make a judgment call to pull the picture, if needed. If you will look at my articles in the last few months you will see that my text (at least) is scrupulously footnoted. Djmaschek (talk) 02:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree with you the copyright rules being rather confusing. It gets worse when you deal with cropping images from other images. Additionally, I hope you don't think that I thought you did something wrong on purpose. That was not my intent. I want to get this image tagged correctly so that it won’t get deleted.

Anyway, I do think that this image is {{PD}}. The problem is the information provided doesn’t quite get it there. That is why I tagged this as {{wrong-license}} and not "Possible Un-free", which would have lead to deletion. Do you have any idea who made this image or any way to show that this image is pre-1890?--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 12:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I will say this. If you changed the information template to this:

== Summary ==

{{Information

|Description = [[Anton von Zach]], [[Austria|Austrian]] general

|Source = http://www.napoleon-online.de/AU_Generale/html/zach.html

|Date = Created c. November 1826 (death of Anton von Zach)

|Author = Unknown

|permission = Works of unknown authors or where the author's death date is unknown are copyrighted until the shorter of 95 years since the first publication or 120 years since their creation. [[Public_domain#Current_standard_copyright_duration_in_U.S._law|see here]]

|other_versions = }}

== Licensing ==

{{PD-old}}

I would highly suspect that no one would say anything. However, just to make it clear. There is still a chance that someone could come along and say "prove it", which is why I'm not willing to do it myself. I can't prove it, but I won’t stop you from doing it. Just make sure you take the {{wrong-license}} tag off.---ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 12:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Body Memory

Will help with the merge effort after I get home tonight, 6 or so PT. Talk soon, The Interior (talk) 16:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I can do it in a heart beat. I'm just afraid that user:Pod3CD will undo everything. I was hoping you would chime in as to what you think so we can get a consensus--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 18:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Be able to comment in a few hours. Topic is quite complicated, so I must bone up on the particulars first. The Interior (talk) 18:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

PUF closure, Sep 2

As you're most likely already aware, I just wanted to remind you that you can perform FFD/PUF closures that result in anything but delete (and, preferably, are non-controversial). In fact you just might make it easier on those administrators who work the areas. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok. You are correct, I was unaware.--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 12:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Your closure of this is problematic. Non-free content should credit the copyright holder, but we don't know who holds the copyright. The only reasonable closes, IMO, were keep (free) or delete (non-free). It might seem Solomonic to split the difference, but I am not at all interested in adding more non-free content to Wikipedia and would have preferred deletion to your solution (even though I believe it is free on the balance of probabilities). Furthermore, images which would be free in country of origin, but which are not free in the United States under the provisions of the URAA, should be copied to Commons and tagged with the relevant license tags and commons:template:Not-PD-US-URAA until such time as a decision is made on this class of images. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you get the "Non-free content should credit the copyright holder" statement. As I go threw the all the “Non-free media use”.... categories, I find some that “source" is used to mean where the got the image and not the copyright holder about half the time.

As to your "free in country of origin" statement, first you haven't shown that it is free in the UK and every tag you mentioned anywhere includes a statement that "This is not a valid license on ..." Commons or Wikipedia and must include a valid US tag. I don't see how then you expect to copy them to commons and not get the deleted.

However, since this is no longer "non-controversial" I went ahead and re-opened the PUF.--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 19:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Non-free content belongs to someone. The least that that someone can expect is that we acknowledge their rights. And you're right, it's not uncontroversial. Thanks for re-opening it. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:58, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

PuF

What was this about? The nomination was never withdrawn, so your close reason was not valid.--Terrillja _talk 01:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

It was changed to a no-free tag. PUF no longer applies. If you read the note by user:AnomieBOT it explains this.--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 13:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

That was left after you closed it as withdrawn. Which it never was. Withdrawn would mean that I explicitly withdrew the nom or changed the tag myself. I didn't. --Terrillja _talk 14:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

It still explains why it was close. I changed the wording to make you happy, and I don't see the problem anymore.--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 14:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Current FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives

Category:Current FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the category's entry on the Category for Deletion page. __meco (talk) 09:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Body memory/cellular memory

Hi,

Please see my comments on talk:body memory and talk:cellular memory. I think we essentially agree on the topic in general, I think there's just a few sticking points that are so minor they're almost stylistic. I was the primary editor on both that stubbed them a while back in the face of some pseudoscientific nonsense pushing. May I suggest we continue our discussion on the appropriate talk pages? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

October 2010

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

LDS work group

Hello. I noticed you've made edits to articles related to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and thought you might be interested in participating in the LDS Church work group, part of the Latter Day Saint movement WikiProject. The group aims to serve as a hub for collaboration on Church-related articles. You don't have to be a member of the Church to participate, and the only requirement for active membership is that you edit at least one Church-related article per month. Best wishes! Spalds (talk) 16:48, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment.

Hello ARTEST4ECHO and thanks for the notice this morning concerning the "Pentecostal Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints". I have replied to the talk discussion. I would like to bring in John Hamer as he has been helpful with materials related to LDS research. However, I wish to make sure I am using the correct RfC template when doing so. Could you help in that regard? Thanks much. --Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 18:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what the real Rfc template is, which is why I made my own up. {{TB}} isn't really a good template unless you’re in a discussion with the person, and I haven't found one to invite others to chime in. Anyway you’re welcome to use mine. Just place:
{{subst:User:ARTEST4ECHO/comment|Page_name=Talk:List_of_sects_in_the_Latter_Day_Saint_movement#Pentecostal_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints|Display_name=Pentecostal Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints}}
on his page and it will auto sign for you.

Many thanks. I will try it now. :)--Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 21:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Images missing description details

Hi there. I note you have put a bunch of notices on my talk page saying that images I have made are lacking description details and may be deleted. Did you notice that the majority of these images were added a long time ago, before these new rules were in place? Just my concern is I have added hundreds of such images, and the older ones will all not have a description as this was not a requirement at the time they were uploaded. Deleting them seems silly as someone will just have to redraw them, and I don't really have the time these days to manually go through and add the requested description to every single image. Also I would note that the content, author, source, and date information is already there in every case; I drew the images myself, the picture is the chemical structure of the compound named in the filename (which is obvious if you follow the link to the page for that compound), and the date drawn is the same date it was uploaded, usually no more than a few minutes earlier. Delete the images if you wish, but your process seems unnecessarily pedantic and out of step with the established aims of furthering the wikipedia project. Meodipt (talk) 14:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

These images aren’t tagged for deletion. I'm trying to get these moved to commons for use on all Wikipedia pages. They were old because that "self made" images are backlogged years. I since you seem to care (as most don't) I will be more then happy to help you describe these so they can be move.--ARTEST4ECHO ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh right, well yeah obviously put them on Commons if you want, although most of them only have pages on en.wiki at the moment I guess it will make it easier for anyone who wants to make a page for them in the future. Its not that I'm opposed to adding description tags to the images, I've added an extra description to all the ones I've made since they brought in the new image uploading system, but more that manually adding a description to the hundreds of images I made months or years back seems a bit daunting, and kind of silly when the information is already there, just not written in the preferred format...surely you guys have bots for these kind of automated tasks? Meodipt (talk) 14:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

There may be a bot. However, I don't know what it is. I'm working in June of 2008 section right now and these are the olny ones I know of so far. I will keep an eye out for your user name and only ask you about the image that I can't figure out. Deal?--ARTEST4ECHO ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:14, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good  :-) Meodipt (talk) 14:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

What I do not understand is the fact that you are still uploading structural formulas to en.wikipedia instead of Commons. Please, please, upload them to Commons. --Leyo 14:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I found the Commons image uploading process more fiddly when I tried it out before but I promise I'll give it a go next time I upload an image!! Meodipt (talk) 03:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Christian in Pilgrim's Progress.jpg

[edit] Possibly unfree File:Christian in Pilgrim's Progress.jpg A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Christian in Pilgrim's Progress.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --ARTEST4ECHO (talk|contribs) 15:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

This image is from a book printed in 1913, so it is in the public domain. What proof do you need other than that?--Drboisclair (talk) 04:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

• Please see page 18 of this pdf link from Internet Archive: [5]. It is the same image that I scanned from a hard copy of the 1913 COPYRIGHT book. This is ten years before the cut off year of 1923! This book is public domain, and a scanned page is also public domain. If it needs changes in licensing, then specify the changes needed.--Drboisclair (talk) 04:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

That all that was needed, had the image had that information when I tagged it. Please forgive me if I'm wrong but you seem to be insinuating that I should have known all the information above. When I tagged that image all you supplied was "Scanned from public domain material drboisclair 23:36, 11 October 2005 (UTC)" and then claimed that you owned the copyright. see You didn't supply any of the information above, so that is why I list this as PUF. However, now it is tagged correctly so I am withdrawing the PUF tag. This is the reason for the {{puf}} system, to fix issue like this.--ARTEST4ECHO ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for helping, and I apologize to you and fellow editors for assuming that. Part of the problem, apart from my error, may have been the lack of more specific directions to "uploaders" five years ago. I deeply appreciate your efforts to help Wikipedia become all that it should be! Cordially,--Drboisclair (talk) 14:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

As we saw, it's easy to find things out about an image when you know where it's from. If. Yesterday I looked in several editions of Pilgrim's Progress without finding that picture, but that's because the book wasn't called Pilgrim's Progress. The picture didn't look C19th (and wasn't) and it didn't have a source: I'd have nominated this as possibly unfree as well. Keep up the good work! Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Project Christianity template

For what it's worth, I basically copied the pre-existing internal structure of the template, and just reorganized the order in which the individual groups appeared in the template when it is transcluded, so that in the event there is a "main" project on a given topic, like say the Mormon project and a more focused subproject like the LDS Church work group, the broader group will appear first and the more focused group will appear second. On that basis, I have some difficulty seeing how these problems exist. If you can point out to me a specific page where this problem exists, I would be more than happy to see it, but, right now, at least at Talk:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, it appears to be working as it should. John Carter (talk) 15:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Well right now the template is working because MSGJ reverted your changes. I am not a programmer so I don't know were the problems lays. However, if you compare the before and after here I can show you some of the problems I know about.

• Latter Day Saint Movement vs. Latter Day Saint movement: At some point the Wikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement/The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints work group was changed to Wikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint Movement/The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints work group. Making the link in the box not work.
• Latter Day Saint movement importance: This value no longer showed up at all, even if the editor supplied it. During the time your edits were in force all talk pages appeared as having "???" importance.
• Salem Witch Trials Task Force. Importance link is broken see

Again I ma not a programmer, so I can't say if this is all the issue. These are just the ones I know about.--ARTEST4ECHO ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Rosemarie Koczy Sculpture107 2002.jpg

Dear ARTEST4ECHO,

I am the author of this page and I just noticed that 5 files containing pictures of her artwork have been removed as "possibly unfree". Before uploading these file, I talked to the administrator of Rosemary Koczy's estate and I received his permission to upload the files. I did not get a written document from him, since from what I understand only her estate could challenge the copyright - and so, I believe that no such challenge would be forthcoming. I hope that this information is sufficient to restore the files. Otherwise, what course of action would you recommend? I could get his written permission, for example. I could also organize for him to upload the files himself - but this would be a real pain for him - and the process for doing that is unclear (would he need to open a separate Wikipedia account for that?). Please advise.

Thank you for your help on this,

Emmanuel Yashchin Yashchi (talk) 04:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

---

The issue was that you claimed to hold the copyright. If you have permission to upload the image from the copyright holder, you need to go threw the OTRS system. See also {{di-no permission}}. So this is what you need to do.

1. Contact Explicit the admin who delete the images. Explain what you did above, and ask him to undelete the image. Ask him to tag the image with {{OTRS pending|month=October|day=21|year=2010}}. This will temporarily allow you to have the images back. However, if the e-mail below isn't received by the OTRS system it will end up deleted. If he asks tell him that the {{puf}} tagger agrees to this undelete and ask him to see this page.
3. Make sure the {{tl|PD-self}} tag is changed to {{OTRS pending|month=October|day=21|year=2010}} since this wont work if this isn't done.
4. Ask the copyright holder to e-mail the statement below to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. Make sure you list all the image address for him/her (example http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Rosemarie_Koczy_Sculpture107_2002.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1, ....) . Title the e-mail with the Wikipedia name (for example: Rosemarie Koczy Sculpture107 2002.jpg, .....)

I hereby affirm that I, (name here) am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of (entire webpage address of image)

I agree to publish that work under the free license "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0" (unported) and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).

I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be attributed to me.

I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

[SENDER'S NAME AND DETAILS (to allow future verification of authenticity)]
I am the copyright-holder

[DATE]

Loose Tubes photo

Hi. I have corrected the file as you have suggested - I can confirm that I didn’t take the picture myself in 1985! I am still finding my way around image licensing and welcome any advice. Many thanks. Nostalgic34 (talk) 21:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

OK. I have withdrawn the nom.--ARTEST4ECHO ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the further corrections to the file licensing. Nostalgic34 (talk) 06:42, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Disc Golf Image

Hey, you marked [6] for speedy deletion on the main disc golf page. Why was it flagged? Jgamekeeper (talk) 16:13, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Because I thought the WTFPL take was some kind of joke license, since that license was tagged for deletion. The license was apparently kept, so I have removed the deletion tag. My I suggest you change the tag, or someone else is going to do the same thing I did.--ARTEST4ECHO ^{(talk|contribs)} 12:23, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, the image isn't mine, nor is the license. Jgamekeeper (talk) 00:51, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

November 2010

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Re: MXO44

You did. You're fine. The rest of my comment above is about Storm, and what he said above about me swallowing camels and whatnot. I probably should've made myself clearer where you stop and he begins, which I went back and did Purple[[User talk:Purplebackpack89

Photo requests

Hey, Artest! Do you do photo requests?

I would like for someone to photograph the Arkansas Department of Correction HQ in Pine Bluff. Would you be willing to do that? WhisperToMe (talk) 14:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I have never been to Pine Bluff personally. However, my son has recently moved up to Boy Scouts from Cubs, so we go camping every month. Our next trip in December is the last on listed on our calendar and its isn't anywere near Pine Bluff. The new 2011 calendar isn't up yet, but one of those camping trips may be near pine bluff. So I will keep this request in mind (and on my talk page and out of my archives where it will be forgotten). If we end up going threw Pine Bluff at some point, I will take a photo. I will let you know when the 2011 calendar comes out and if this will happen and when.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 14:56, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Alrighty - thanks for letting me know :) WhisperToMe (talk) 18:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

_contribs) 17:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

December 2010

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

to commons

Hi, this pic of Barlow, you nominated to move to commons, was there any additional discussion regarding the pic? I am dubious about its copyright status, did you investigate at all? Off2riorob (talk) 04:10, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

No. I nominated this before all the issues came up. Your welcome to remove the nomination.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 14:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah ok, I thought you may have additional info, thanks, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 14:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

City of London School - notable people section and list

Hello,

Thanks for the help on List & Family History Center (LDS Church).

Also when you get a chance, please take a look at: City of London School#Notable former pupils and List of Old Citizens

The list of old citizens are notable former pupils. The list was getting long and made into a list. Then others started adding names again to the main article. Thoughts?

Maybe the whole "Notable people" section to a list? This includes the section "Notable current pupils and staff?"

I just do not want this GA article to be downgraded because of the adding of names. Any help there is appreciated. Jrcrin001 (talk) 03:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there is a problem. I don't know this subject at all, so forgive me if my thought process is completely off. This is just my humble opinion, but the big issue I see is a simple issue. As far as I can tell there is no difference between "Notable former pupils" and "Prominent Old Citizens". However, this takes some reading to understand that "former pupils" are called "Old Citizens", so someone who doesn’t know this doesn’t understand that adding them to the “Old Citizens” list is the way to go.

So I see two ways to handle this.

A. In the article, move the entire list of names to the list, remove "The following is, therefore, a very small selection", change the {{See also|List of Old Citizens}} to {{list|List of Old Citizens}}, and add <!-- Name should be added to "List of Old Citizens" --> after the text of the section. Then, the list, change the title "Prominent Old Citizens" to "Notable Old Citizens (former pupils)" or "Notable former pupils (Old Citizens)". I think those changes will make it more clear that names should be added to the list instead of the article.

B. Figure out the "Most Notable" (if there is such a thing). Leave those in the article and move the rest to the list. Add <!—New name should be added to "List of Old Citizens" after the last name of the section. I would still change the title "Prominent Old Citizens" to "Notable Old Citizens (former pupils)" or "Notable former pupils (Old Citizens)".

Personally I think A is the best way to go, but having some names on the list (choice B) would be nice. However, figuring out a short list of "Most Notable" is very subjective and probably imposable to maintain.

I hope this helps. I would be more than happy to help you implement these changes, once I hear from you. However, as I said before, I don't know this subject at all. Therefore I'm not comfortable changing them until I get more info.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 13:43, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

A question. Since we have a Category:Old Citizens (City of London School) listed, why maintain a list when we can refer to the category list? But, in checking current notable members, they are not on that category list and many former "Old Citizens" are not on that category also. Maybe that answers my own question?

We can remove the sections of "Notable current pupils and staff" and "Notable former pupils" and just maintain the section "Notable people." Current notables should be listed, but former members should be on the list because it is subjective to have them in the main article. I made the change to "{list|List of Old Citizens}" already with the following comment as you suggested to the end of the paragraph starting with "Former pupils of the ..." "!-- Names should be added to "List of Old Citizens" --."

Is this enough to suggest the merge in the article? Jrcrin001 (talk) 19:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I still think the best thing to do is move everything over to the List and remove the names all from the article.

That didn't work for the Family History Center list because there was a definite cutoff (Library Class) and there were very few items in the list. Basically the list was defined in such a way to include a very narrow list of items that would increase in size and useful information once in a great while. So inclsion in the artical was easy.

However in this case no matter how hard you try you will never be able to keep the list of "notables" small without someone coming along and complaining about someone not being on the list. Basically the list is defined in such a way to include a broad list of people that will even increase in size and useful information very quickly. So inclusion in the article is difficult.

I would even add {{Dynamic list}} top of the list, so that people will be encouraged to add new names that are properly referenced.

However, I don't know this subject at all. The people list on the artical may be "more notable" then the list, so it works just fine with the "add more name to the list" note. That is up to you.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 20:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Done. How does this look? City of London School#Notable people and List of Old Citizens I appreciate your walking it through with me. It now looks and works better. Thanks Again! Jrcrin001 (talk) 17:10, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

It looks good. However, I have never seen a {{list}} or any other linking template anywhere but at the begriming of a section, but as far as I know it isn't bad, but I don't know if someone will change that. Perhaps moving it to the top of the section and changing it to {{list|List of Old Citizens|List of Old Citizens (former pupils)}} --ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 17:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.