User talk:Twunchy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Twunchy, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

I did delete your "United Effort Plan" article, because articles containing only links to other websites are not allowed in Wikipedia. Try recreating the article with information about the website. Academic Challenger 08:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Good job on the FLDS update

Good job on the FLDS update, adding the picture of the temple, etc (I was eventually going to do that) -- I am not LDS (far from it) but I understand how folks like that (FLDS) ruin LDS's reputation -- keep up the good work...

I'll take a look. Tom Haws 17:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Golden Plates

I may have been a bit abrupt in my reply to your questioning of the neutrality of the Golden Plates page. The page has been pretty stable for some weeks now, but if the information given there needs more citation, we can work on that. I've archived previous talk page posts so that we'll have an uncluttered field if we need it. All the best, --John Foxe 19:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] grammar was correct

I'm not trying to embarrass you I'm just pointing out the "correction" you made on the lost 116 pages was incorrect. The area between the commas was a parenthetical interjection, so the "and" is unnecessary. It should read as a coherent sentence without the interjection. So therefore the sentence should read: "Before returning home after two weeks, Lucy searched the Smith house and grounds for the plates, but because Smith did not need their physical presence to create the transcription, they were reportedly hidden in a nearby woods, she was unable to locate them."

With the interjection removed it should still be coherent: "Before returning home after two weeks, Lucy searched the Smith house and grounds for the plates, but because Smith did not need their physical presence to create the transcription and she was unable to locate them." As you can see, it doesn't make sense with the "and" there when the interjection is removed. I will quietly revert the mistake and also feel free to remove this from your page if you wish. Twunchy 04:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Of course, you're right. Nevertheless, the original sentence (especially seen in edit mode) was confusing.--John Foxe 10:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Bf-map with Half Moon Cay.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Bf-map with Half Moon Cay.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 17:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your edits to Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints

Please do not add content without citing reliable sources, especailly after it was previously removed, as you did to Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Your edits: link. Thank you. —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 07:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent FLDS Church edits

Why did you add a big section on history there when all the information was already in the article later on? Work on what's already there; there is no need to duplicate all the information in the article.

The lds.org citation you are providing is terribly biased and POV, as it attempts to claim that the term "Mormon" can only be used to describe the LDS Church. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 01:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Will you please address these issues on the Talk:Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints instead of violating the 3RR rule by reverting endlessly. There is some logic to my edits, none of which you have addressed, and your behavior suggests that you may think you own the page. Please discuss to avoid the involvement of administrators. Thanks. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 04:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Golden Plates

I have just reviewed the article, and it needs a bit of formatting work before being promoted to GA status. Other than that, it really is a terrific article. Zeus1234 16:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Golden Plates

You seem to be letting your bias affect your edit. Did he not say that? The edit I made was accurate, yet your reversal of the edit changes the meaning back to the assumption that his claim is 100% factual when this is clearly in dispute by most anyone who has knowledge of the subject and is not a Mormon. Sources such as this seem to refute much in this article. ++Arx Fortis (talk) 05:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Featured article review : Golden plates

Golden plates has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Serpent's Choice (talk) 19:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re Signed Contribs

I just made two edits on Talk:Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints#"Origins" subsection changes that i should explain. (In both cases, i understand the good faith that obviously underlay your relevant changes, i see no need for you to be concerned about the past events, and i could argue that that is more important to get across than the rest of what i'm saying here.)
You'll surely have noticed editors and even bots remedying editors' omissions to sign their contribs on talk pages, AfD debates, and the like. You may decide that this concern of mine makes me an annoying compulsive jerk (which i am), but i hope you will find that the hazards i raise are (tho rarely) potentially significant and avoidable without great effort, and thus sufficient reason for drawing clean lines between confusion-free procedures and a slippery slope where forged contribs would routinely disrupt discussions, and perhaps occasionally fraudulently prevent or reverse consensuses.
The principles i commend to you are:

  1. Quote what you're commenting on in your response, rather than inserting your response after: if well-formated, the first comment is clear, but not everyone finds it easy to format it well, and even well-formated, it gets confusing if there are multiple insertions. (And even in simple cases, it can be easy to see what's being commented on and the response as covered by the responder's sig, and only what follows the response as covered by the original sig.)
  2. If you are revising your own comment, preserve the original version (whether by stating your changes after it, or by using typography to make clear which parts apply to the new or old version only, and which to both) in the new revision (bcz checking in the history is rare and laborious), and show both corresponding UTC times/dates: someone may have copied your first version elsewhere, or responded to it without your noticing the impact of your change on what they've said, so you may make them look like a fool or a forger; someone may even be in the midst of responding to your original version when you make your corrections, and not notice you've corrected, or notice and have to laboriously rework their response bcz you've destroyed the context that they've relied upon in good faith; in my case (looking at all the changes since my own edit), i wasted time figuring out how to deal with what at first seemed to be the blog-defender forging in a site that they preferred, as if you'd recommended it!)
    --Jerzy•t 07:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)