TanRabbitry

Welcome!

Hi ARBARabbitry! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing!

April 2024

Hello,

I have been able to start editing again. I will abide by what I said about disclosure of membership in an organization whose page I am editing. In addition, I will try to figure out how to "propose" a change if it is a major one. I still maintain that being a member of the ARBA and editing its page is closer to a Texas Rangers fan editing that page than someone with a conflict of interest. Just because I am member, that does not mean I can not be completely neutral. Nevertheless, I am also going to include as many citations in such articles as I can, to prove objectivity. Thank you.

Blue Imperial rabbit

Article Wizard

Proposed deletions

Over the last couple days, you've proposed deletion of Karen B. Westerfield Tucker and Bäckadräkten. Both articles were running at DYK on the main page when you proposed the deletions. There are two major issues with your PRODs:

1. In both cases, your PROD rationales were erroneous and demonstrated a poor understanding of Wikipedia's notability policy. In the first case, you failed to acknowledge the multiple factors that contributed to the individual's notability and mistakenly believed she had only authored a couple chapters in a few books. In the second, you mistakenly stated that the article was wholly promotional and lacked indications of notability, despite extensive cited independent, significant coverage and discussion of critical viewpoints.
2. Proposed deletions are almost always inappropriate for articles that make it to the main page as DYKs, as they require substantial vetting before being allowed to run. The preferred venue for a well-sourced, 1+-week-old article is AFD.

Further spurious PRODs, particularly on articles as they are displayed on the main page, will likely be treated as disruptive. I encourage you to refrain from further proposed deletions and to review this helpful guide instead. If you have questions, ping me here. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:08, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

@Pbritti

I accept that the first article is in fact notable. When I read it, it seemed to me to be extremely obscure due to the following reasons:

1. For one of the books ("The Oxford Guide to the Book of Common Prayer: A Worldwide Survey"), the subject of the article contributed one chapter among 58 other authors.

2. For the other book, ("The Oxford History of Christian Worship") she co-edited the book, wrote a chapter and co-wrote the final chapter.

3. The editors and the other authors of the former book do not have articles.

4. She won an award from one organization and served as president of another.

You maintained the following, which convinced me otherwise:

1. The fact that other related pages do not exist is inconsequential.

2. The award received is prestigious and the organization she presided over is important.

I accept you are correct in those things. I also would further state that the articles on the two organizations should be expanded and the award perhaps should even have its own page. Thank you for explaining the notability standard.

Now in regards to the other proposed deletion, I saw both articles on display at the "home" page. Both seemed to be pretty trivial at the time (though once again, I have changed my mind on the former). However, the second article is, I maintain, not especially notable, but more importantly it is promotional. No one could read it and not recognize the celebratory tone of the article. It is not neutral. No, it doesn't list prices, but otherwise may as well be a sale description. I may have been mistaken about the other article, but at the absolute least the second article is very poorly written and not in the tone of an encyclopedia.

Once again, if you wrote the first article, I am sorry to have nominated it for deletion. I realize that I misunderstood the standard. But the second is not a good article and, I believe, is beyond repairing. I hope you do not think that I am attempting to damage Wikipedia, my goal is it's improvement and expansion or addition of important subjects. Certainly all editors are fallible and just as I was mistaken in thinking the first article was not needed, others may let a poor article slip through, even unto the "home" page. I had already added the second article where you said, so its deletion could be discussed. I haven't checked, but if it was decided it should stay, I will accept it, even though I believe that consensus would be wrong. Thank you,

TanRabbitry (talk) 22:12, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Again, you don't appear to understand that none of this relates to person grievance, but rather the fact that you have repeatedly proposed the deletion of previously vetted articles and left messes for others to fix in failed attempts to create deletion discussions. If you want to delete Bäckadräkten, you must use the AfD process and make Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bäckadräkten, rather than incorrectly editing the AfD page (which actually ends up editing subsidiary, unrelated deletion discussion pages). I highly encourage you to refrain from attempting to delete any other articles for the flawed and erroneous rationales you've provided. Fundamentally, as a recently unblocked editor with hardly any editing experience, you don't appear to understand what you're doing or how to do it correctly. Perhaps try your hand at some content creation and avoid the complicated behind-the-scenes processes until you have more experience. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:13, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

@Pbritti

I thought I had correctly added the article to that page. I still am not sure what I had missing. I thought that I followed the direction as the article said. I don't know of any other article at the moment that needs deleting anyway.

The "block" you mentioned was essentially a mistake. Someone was confused by my original "username" and thought I represented an organization whose page I had edited. I do not. The mistake was reversed and I have made sure to disclose any association with any group whose page I have edited, along with providing plenty of citations. That way there is not any question of a conflict of interest. I hope the explanation shows that the previous mistaken "blocking" is not really relevant to this. Thank you,

TanRabbitry (talk) 23:43, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

You were not blocked on accident, as your username was a policy violation. That isn't a big deal on its own, but mistakes add up. If you insist on launching a deletion discussion, follow these instructions, taken from WP:AFDHOWTO:

You must sign in to nominate pages for deletion. If you do not sign-in, or you edit anonymously, you will get stuck part way through the nomination procedure.

• To nominate multiple related pages for deletion, follow the multi-page deletion nomination procedure.
• To nominate a single page for deletion, you can use Twinkle, or follow these three steps:

I – Put the deletion tag on the article. Insert {{subst:afd1}} at the top of the article. Do not mark the edit as minor. If this article has been nominated before, use {{subst:afdx|2nd}} or {{subst:afdx|3rd}} etc. Include in the edit summary AfD: Nominated for deletion; see [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NominationName]]. replacing NominationName with the name of the page being nominated. Publish the page. The NominationName is normally the article name (PageName), but if it has been nominated before, use "PageName (2nd nomination)" or "PageName (3rd nomination)" etc.)

II – Create the article's deletion discussion page. The resulting AfD box at the top of the article should contain a link to "Preloaded debate" in the AfD page. Click that link to open the article's deletion discussion page for editing. Some text and instructions will appear. You can do it manually as well: Click the link saying "deletion discussion page" to open the deletion-debate page. Insert this text: {{subst:afd2 | pg=PageName | cat=Category | text=Why the page should be deleted}} ~~~~ Replace PageName with the name of the page, Category with a letter from the list M, O, B, S, W, G, T, F, and P to categorize the debate, and Why the page should be deleted with the reasons the page should be deleted. If appropriate, inform members of the most relevant WikiProjects through one or more "deletion sorting lists". Then add a {{subst:delsort|<topic>|<signature>}} template to the nomination, to insert a note that this has been done. Use an edit summary such as Creating deletion discussion for [[PageName]]. Publish the page.

III – Notify users who monitor AfD discussions. Open the articles for deletion log page for editing. At the top of the list on the log page (there's a comment indicating the spot), insert:{{subst:afd3 | pg=NominationName}} Replace NominationName appropriately (use "PageName", "PageName (2nd nomination)", etc.) Link to the discussion page in your edit summary: Adding [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NominationName]]. Publish the page. Consider letting the authors know on their talk page by adding: {{subst:Afd notice|Page name}} ~~~~ If this is not the first nomination, add a second parameter with the NominationName (use "PageName (2nd nomination)" etc.): {{subst:Afd notice|PageName|NominationName}} ~~~~

If you remain confused, let me know. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:03, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

@Pbritti

Ah, I see what I missed. If you say it's within the rules, so be it. I disagree, but as you say, I haven't been editing very long. On another note, I saw you have been editing the SBC article. The SBC is not a denomination (I will elaborate momentarily), that is a common misconception. I did use a primary source, but in accordance with the guidelines. I rewrote the sentence and added a different citation. Now, denomination can be defined in two different ways. The first is as a unified, hierarchical church. The SBC is not, nor has ever been this. The second is as a distinct branch of Christianity. The SBC can be called this, as can Baptists broadly. That is why I previously wrote it was not a denomination in the former sense, instead of just saying it isn't a denomination at all. The new version says the SBC isn't a "hierarchical denomination" rather than saying it isn't a denomination at all, which would be inaccurate in regards to the latter definition.

I include a quotation:

"A Baptist church is free to decide its own affairs. This freedom is called autonomy, which means self-rule. Paul taught that each church had a full complement of gifts for leadership and service. The Southern Baptist Convention does not ordain ministers, assign ministers to churches, levy contributions to denominational causes, dictate literature and calendar, or assign persons to churches according to place of residence. These are matters for the local church to decide.

A free church may freely choose to work with other free churches. In Baptist bodies such as associations and conventions, messengers from the churches to these general bodies meet to share counsel and encouragement, discuss common problems, conduct business, and pool their resources to do ministries together which no one church could do alone. This is un-coerced cooperation."

This is a reference to all Baptist churches (which the Baptists would say are the sound ones), not just Southern Baptist churches. Therefore all churches are (or at least should be), in the view of Southern Baptists, autonomous. That is why it is appropriate to note that at the beginning of the SBC article. Thank you,

TanRabbitry (talk) 02:08, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

By the way, thank you for fully explaining the process for deletion nomination and for offering to answer other questions on it. TanRabbitry (talk) 02:15, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

No problem regarding offering to help. You should learn the process at some point and not showing you how to do it helps no one. Please note the following regarding the SBC:

• Gallup: "the Southern Baptist denomination remains the largest Protestant group in the U.S."
• Christianity Today: "The Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) ranks among the world’s largest Christian denominations"
• ERLC of the SBC: "Southern Baptists give in support of denominational ministries"
• Religion News Service: "The Southern Baptist Convention may be the nation’s largest Protestant denomination"

Members of the SBC may claim, like some members of the Catholic Church, that their group is not a denomination. However, by every metric and according to reliable sources, it is. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:24, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

@Pbritti

Oh, yes, there are many, MANY news references to the SBC as a denomination. As the word can be correctly applied, it is not technically inaccurate, but often misleading. As I said, denomination can just be a Christian group with like-minded beliefs, as all Baptists may be considered a denomination. What is always wrong and is quite irritating is when a news article refers to the SBC as the Southern Baptist "Church," because the author supposes they are a single entity rather than a cooperation. It is similar, I believe, to referring to all Catholic churches as "Roman Catholic." It is a subtle distinction, but a crucial one.

In regards to the ERLC reference; first, it is speaking about the former definition of denomination. Second, the article mentions how churches in the SBC are "fully autonomous." Lastly, the ERLC does not have authority to define how the SBC is structured. The key take-away of the article is that the SBC represents the cooperation between local churches. The cooperation comes first and the SBC emerges from and is subservient to same. On a note that isn't a valid source, since it is personal observation, the ERLC has been much criticized from within the SBC for some of their practices and statements.

I think the rephrased sentence you wrote fulfills the requirement of the denomination distinction, in that it is clear that the SBC is the former, but not the latter type of denomination. The only bit I am unsure of are the two words "organized as," that may still be confusing to those who are unfamiliar. What about adding the word "fully" before "autonomous?" TanRabbitry (talk) 02:51, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Your position is nuanced but probably not appropriate for the lead (though I appreciate the addition of that portion of the sentence that I also opted to keep). I would not include "fully", as there are conflicting statements from the SBC regarding this. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:13, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

@Pbritti

Yes, I am quite familiar with that case (that is part of the criticism of the ERLC I alluded to earlier). The key line of that article I would say is this: "Both concepts are direct contradictions of the Southern Baptist Constitution and the Baptist Faith and Message." Putting aside personal opinions, any rational person reading either of those documents would come to the same conclusion as the article you referenced. Many leaders (as mentioned in the article) repudiated the incorrect assertion of the ERLC. This is obviously far beyond the scope of the SBC article (and is once again un-referenceable and therefore not applicable), but I would add that much of this is due to alleged poor financial decisions on the part of the NAMB. I would argue that the ERLC's later statement: “As Southern Baptists, we believe that every church is fully autonomous, and that means autonomous from any other church, entity, or hierarchy, and also autonomous from the state," is tantamount to a retraction. I would further say it was a retraction made with their tail between their legs. I would note the phrase "fully autonomous," in that sentence. The SBC is not, in fact, uncertain on this. There are just a few people within it who are plain wrong and the rest of the SBC have and will continue to correct them. TanRabbitry (talk) 03:35, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

@Pbritti

Since you offered to answer questions, do you think you could help with the following? On the Blue Imperial Rabbit page's "Talk" area under the "Picture" section is a request to add a picture. There is a link to an article that includes a photograph of a Blue Imperial. The picture (as you would expect) is from the early twentieth century and I would think, therefore is all right to utilize in the article. Is that accurate, or could it be copyrighted? Thank you,

TanRabbitry (talk) 04:07, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm assuming you're talking about the 1905-dated photo of the woman with the rabbit? If so, yes, that image is in the public domain because it appears to have been published in or before 1928 (US copyright law generally considers works published 95+ years ago to be in the public domain). Please upload it to Wikimedia Commons with the appropriate info if you wish to add it to the article! Thanks for asking first about that—copyright is a difficult thing. Other editors are also available to answer similar questions at the Teahouse. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:21, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

@Pbritti

Thank you. I will do so,

TanRabbitry (talk) 21:23, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

@Pbritti

Regarding the recent edits, I don't think the changes read as celebratory or anything like that. Rather, it reflects the fact that the preceding line on attendance is now inaccurate, or at least misleading. Also, the increased baptisms are not merely a "silver lining," but reflect hundreds of thousands of new baptisms. According to the referenced article (https://www.christianpost.com/news/sbc-baptisms-near-pre-pandemic-levels-as-attendance-surges.html), those are centered in the South, but the leading state is California, with a 248% increase. In other words, despite a slight overall membership decrease, there has a great deal of growth and renewed participation, in opposition to the last several years' trend. Thank you,

TanRabbitry (talk) 21:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I think that you are struggling to recognize the subtle POV visible in the language you inserted. I would encourage you to practice some more on articles perhaps less personally relevant to you and reviewing some of the material on the POV page the help you develop a more trained eye for what Wikipedia considers POV and how to address it in your own work. Also, you don't need to declare your affiliation with the SBC when you edit the page (though the openness is commendable!). If you worry people might accuse you of hiding your affiliation with the SBC in the future, you could insert this userbox on your userpage, which would function as a disclosure. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:37, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

@Pbritti

Hello,

I am not necessarily disagreeing with you about the "point of view," but what specifically in what I wrote violated the neutrality rule? I thought that the additional information balanced the seemingly implied message that the SBC is in serious decline by showing that it may be (this is of course, my own opinion) "trimming the fat," so to speak, considering the increased participation and addition of entirely new members. I think that the added information allows readers to form their own conclusion based on the data; be it one of overall growth, decline or balance, depending on their own interpretation of same.

Additionally, I always try to include the disclosure because of the issue with my "username." It had originally mentioned a connection to a rabbit breeders organization that I happen to be a member of, whose page I had edited. I was told that this seemed as if I was representing said organization and was advised to disclose any connection in the future. I am glad to know that that I may do so on my own "user page." Often the disclosure takes a significant amount of space in the small "edit summary" boxes. Thank you for directing me to the example. I do not at present have a page to place one as I have not yet created a "user page," but I will have to give it a try. Thank you again,

TanRabbitry (talk) 04:19, 11 May 2024 (UTC)