User talk:ARTEST4ECHO/Archive/2012
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:ARTEST4ECHO. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
January 2012 - April 2012
January 2012
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Service award
Hello. I noticed you list yourself as a Senior Editor III, which requires both 5 years of service and 33,000 edits. X!'s counter, however, reports that you only have a little over 25,000 edits. In the grand scheme of things, this isn't a big deal, but since awards are one of the few means of positive reinforcement we have here on Wikipedia, I feel it important we uphold their integrity. Perhaps you were not aware that meeting both the tenure and edit count requirements are required to obtain these awards? Or maybe you are counting edits from another account? Whatever the case, these awards are self-regulated, so I just wanted to bring the issue to your attention. Thanks for your continued service to the 'pedia. —Eustress talk 00:55, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
- At the moment I'm not able to make extensive edits or even log in, so I will be brief. I count the 10,000+ edits I have made on commons as ARTEST4ECHO there. I feel that those two should count as both accounts are use in the same way to make the same contributions to wikipedia. As a matter of time it actually take more of my time to find images that are public domain then versus the amount of time editing pages, but that time dose not increase my edit count, so I have always felt that those edits should count.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 04:04, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
BOMI edits
Just wanted to let you know that I mentioned your name at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Three_Witnesses. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
JOHN FOXE CONTINUED RV
I don't know what he did to the David Whitmer page but it is not pulling in the Template:Latter Day Saint biography/David Whitmer now. When you can have a look, hate to see the work not used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BOMC (talk • contribs) 19:40, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- Actually it turns out not to be him. The changes were made on the template by an IP editor.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 19:47, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
February 2012
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Category:American Latter Day Saints
Regarding you additions to Category:American Latter Day Saints:
- Wouldn't it be better to have file pages in a different categorization, such as "Images of Latter Day Saints", rather than placing file pages directly in "Category:American Latter Day Saints"?
- In the case of File:JoiLansing01.jpg (perhaps others, I haven't checked) there is nothing in the Joi Lansing article that indicates the subject's religious affiliation. Technically, Joi Lansing doesn't even belong in the category.
Thanks, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 18:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Your welcome to propose that. I would bring it up on the Category:American Latter Day Saints talk page. I'm only following what was already done, and I really have no strong opinion, ether way. There were a large number of image already in "Category:American Latter Day Saints" when I started with what I was doing. However, what I am doing is dealing with commons:Category:Latter-day Saints from the United States, so I was trying to find a place for those images not in commons. However, please note, I plan on going back and going threw those image and figuring out which one's need to be moved to commons, which stay here, and which should be deleted (some are not properly sourced, etc), so there will be fewer image within a day or two (if I don't get snowed in).
- As to the case of File:JoiLansing01.jpg, Joi_Lansing#Career reads "A Mormon, she did not drink or smoke." So she was a Mormon as far as the page says.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 18:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- The more I thought about it the less it mattered to me, so I went head and implemented the "Images of American Latter Day Saints" category.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 20:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks, I missed that in the Joi Lansing article (I searched for "Latter"). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 20:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Not a problem. I just finished "S" regarding putting those images that belong in commons:Category:Latter-day Saints from the United States. When I'm done, I plan on going threw the Wikipedia images and doing what needs to be done with them.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 20:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks, I missed that in the Joi Lansing article (I searched for "Latter"). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 20:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- The more I thought about it the less it mattered to me, so I went head and implemented the "Images of American Latter Day Saints" category.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 20:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Possibly unfree File:Joseph W Musser.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Joseph W Musser.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. Stefan2 (talk) 10:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
There are several responses to your (and other) comments at this WP:FLRC. Since you commented there, would you be generous enough to indicate if you will be able to address the various serious concerns? I guess from your talk page you won't, but I wanted to give contributors a chance before delisting. Many thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- I would if it wasn't for a conflict with time in real life. I will be back to editing on the 12th. I realize that this wont prevent the list from being delisted, but I can't help that. I have real life stuff I have to take care of.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 13:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
March 2012
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Trend
Would you consider adding another trend line to File:Ratio_of_Converts_Baptized_to_Full-Time_Missionaries.jpg indicating the change in number of missionaries over time? It would be helpful to see how the number of missionaries has changed over time, especially after the 2002 "bar raising" announcement. —Eustress talk 19:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
- I am all open to it. I only expanded the one that appeared before. It stopped in 2006. Do you have a website that has this information handy or do you have it, or would I have to go out and get it? At the moment I an extremely busy. If I have to go out and find the info, I wont be able to get to it for a while. However, if you have it handy, I can do it relatively quickly. --ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 14:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- No, I thought you might have the data. Let's investigate... —Eustress talk 00:42, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
April 2012
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
A barnstar for you
|
The Modest Barnstar | |
| Thanks for your recent contributions! 66.87.0.115 (talk) 20:22, 31 March 2012 (UTC) |
- Thank you. It nice to get nice comments, but I don't know what I did to deserve it.?--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 13:11, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
WikiThanks
Rational Skepticism WikiProject member asking for look at Theosophy entry
Since you are an active participant in the Rational Skepticism WikiProject, would you mind looking over the Wikipedia entry on Theosophy to see if you find any concerns? I'm under the gun because I've been ordered to fix the page so that it accords with my understanding of the NPOV policy. I'm happy to do that but I have a lot of work at my job. Now I've been told that I must make the changes by April 30th or the NPOV tag will be removed. I simply can't learn how to use Wikipedia as a newcomer, become familiar with all the sources, and make the edits if I must do it all by April 30th. Thanks much,Factseducado (talk) 14:09, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- I'm sorry but I can't at the momment.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 00:26, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- I'm sorry for your loss. I don't have any other words of condolence. I'm sorry to have not realized your circumstance. My apologies.Factseducado (talk) 01:40, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- Don't worry about it, I don't.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 13:51, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. Factseducado (talk) 14:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- I'm a bit confused. Who told you that the NPOV tag was going to be removed on April 30th? There is no expiration date on NPOV tags. The tag is supposed to remain there until the issue is resolved.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 16:00, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- I'm sorry for your loss. I don't have any other words of condolence. I'm sorry to have not realized your circumstance. My apologies.Factseducado (talk) 01:40, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- My summary: Some people didn't like the tag. Sunray, JEMead, and Johnfos decided first I had until April 30th to convince them the tag belonged there. Then I feel they ignored the multiple reasons I gave supporting the idea that the articled violated NPOV. Then Sunray decided to remove the NPOV tag on April 27th because I'd objected to having to convince them by April 30th. Then someone else who had not been previously present put the tag back up. Then Sunray, JEMead, and Johnfos backed down but there has been one ad hominem attack against "skeptics" which was dittoed by a second person. Then another person new to the page calmed it down by being reasonable and persuasive. Now a new person to the page has made some substantial improvement but NPOV has not been resolved because there was so much to fix to begin with. One problem is stating religious belief as if it were fact. Factseducado (talk) 04:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- First: I removed the text you added because it wasn't placed there by the editor to it was signed by. I'm pretty sure it's not kosher, unless you put it in quotes. That way I know it's not from you, but quoted by you.
- Second: Sunray, JEMead, and Johnfos cannot make a "Deadline". The NPOV issue must be resolved and a consensus reached before it's removed. If they decided to remove it, take it up the Dispute resolution process.
- Lastly: As I reading over the talk page I think it's clear that there is a NPOV issue. However, I know nothing of this topic, so I'm not sure how well I can help. What I will do, it comment on the removal of the NPOV tag if the other editors remove it. Since it seems, per the Talk page, that others agree that the NPOV tag should stay, AND it's May 1st, I don't think you need to worry. You seem to have a handle on the topic, so keep making changes. If someone removes it, let me know and I will put it back on myself.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 12:26, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- My summary: Some people didn't like the tag. Sunray, JEMead, and Johnfos decided first I had until April 30th to convince them the tag belonged there. Then I feel they ignored the multiple reasons I gave supporting the idea that the articled violated NPOV. Then Sunray decided to remove the NPOV tag on April 27th because I'd objected to having to convince them by April 30th. Then someone else who had not been previously present put the tag back up. Then Sunray, JEMead, and Johnfos backed down but there has been one ad hominem attack against "skeptics" which was dittoed by a second person. Then another person new to the page calmed it down by being reasonable and persuasive. Now a new person to the page has made some substantial improvement but NPOV has not been resolved because there was so much to fix to begin with. One problem is stating religious belief as if it were fact. Factseducado (talk) 04:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- I should have put the highly edited transcript in quotes even though I indicated it was a highly edited transcript. I was so tired I was not thinking clearly. It's not characteristic of me not to put things in quotes and use ellipses when I elide sections. That was my obvious mistake.
- I'd really like to change the language that states beliefs as facts but I'm laying low since three or more people are so unhappy with me about the NPOV tag.
- If the tag does get removed before the issue is resolved, I'll let you know. Thanks for being Willing to chime in if it becomes a problem again. Factseducado (talk) 14:08, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- Not a problem. I only wish I knew more about "Theosophy", so I could help more.
- I think, from reading the Talk page, it's clear that others, besides yourself, feel there is an NPOV issue. I think that Sunray, JEMead, and Johnfos see that now. If they don't they are just ignoring the issue, and it should be taken up the Dispute resolution process.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 14:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- If the tag does get removed before the issue is resolved, I'll let you know. Thanks for being Willing to chime in if it becomes a problem again. Factseducado (talk) 14:08, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- In some ways I think not knowing much about theosophy helps because I have to look things up myself and consult a variety of sources.
- Before now I only looked things up on Wikipedia. The experience of pointing out a problem and suggesting solutions has been eye opening. It is very hard to learn how to do so many things at once. That's why I appreciate your feedback. Thanks again. Factseducado (talk) 14:55, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
A cup of tea for you!
|
Thanks for your efforts in the January 2012 MTC Drive! Cloudbound (talk) 21:31, 29 April 2012 (UTC) |
- Thanks--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 13:51, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
May 2012 - August 2012
May 2012
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Orphaned non-free image File:Sledge Hockey Quarter2.png
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
July 2012
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Dispute Resolution IRC office hours
Hello there. As you expressed interest in hearing updates to my research in the dispute resolution survey that was done a few months ago, I just wanted to let you know that I am hosting an IRC office hours session this coming Saturday, 28th July at 19:00 UTC (approximately 12 hours from now). This will be located in the #wikimedia-office connect IRC channel - if you have not participated in an IRC discussion before you can connect to IRC here.
Regards, User:Szhang (WMF) (talk) 07:00, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
August 2012
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 16:47, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for the notification. Here's the message I posted on the noticeboard:
- "Please read the talk page discussion. The reversion, five days ago, was to undo a removal of content, and Kraxler mistook me for a Mormon when I reverted. The whole matter was discussed fully on the talk page, and I think a reasonable compromise was reached. Furthermore, Samuel L. Mitchill is not a Mormon-related article by any stretch of the imagination. Remove the footnote material and there would be no connection with Mormonism at all."--John Foxe (talk) 18:42, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- I plan to keep all my responses at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 19:49, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- Good, I'll do the same.--John Foxe (talk) 22:25, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- I plan to keep all my responses at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 19:49, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
September 2012 - December 2012
November 2012
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Category:Current FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives
Category:Current FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:22, 7 November 2012 (UTC)