User talk:ARTEST4ECHO/Archive/2014
 | This is an archive of past discussions with 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 2014 - April 2014
February 2014
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
BYU size comparison
Please re-read this article and either revert your edit to the BYU article or justify it in Talk. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 17:15, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
- As you haven't responded in the article's Talk page, I've raised this issue at WP:RSN. ElKevbo (talk) 04:14, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
- Yes I have, two days ago.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 14:09, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Thomas S. Monson lawsuit
Hello. I was glad to see you agreed with me that the lawsuit against President Monson was too frivolous a matter to be mentioned in his WP article. Now that view is under direct attack from the user who posted a request to have it included. Short of discussing the issue, he is resorting to personal attacks that are unbecoming any self-respecting WP editor. I respectfully ask for your support in proving that this is a frivolous lawsuit and not worth mentioning on WP. If this user sees that I'm not the only one with this opinion, he might change his tune. And admittedly, I could use as many people in my corner as I can get. Thanks for your help. Please post on the article's talk page or reply on my talk page, as I don't routinely check other user's talk pages for a response. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 03:55, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
April 2014
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
File:Camp Rockefeller.jpg
File:Camp Rockefeller.jpg is not a logo. It is the masthead of the website. -- Gadget850 talk 14:37, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
- It is also the camp log.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 14:37, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
May 2014 - August 2014
May 2014
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Please...
...do not make mass edits in support of MOS LDS. Thanks. I've reverting them. BMK (talk) 13:58, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- The offical name is "THE Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints" Why are you reverting something clearly correct and supported by concensus?ARTEST4ECHO (talk) 14:03, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- Many, many organizations have "The" in their official title, but the normal rules of grammar are that within the context of the body of a sentence, the word "the" is not capitalized. If MOS LDS says otherwise, it is wrong. Now please stop reverting my correction of your basic grammatical error. BMK (talk) 14:04, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- It is not a "basic grammatical error" when the word "The" is part of the legal Name [of "the]. The clear consensus is "THE" is capitalized. You are wrong.ARTEST4ECHO (talk) 14:11, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- You need to STOP. You are going against the consensus. At least wait to undo everything until you have a chance to get comments.ARTEST4ECHO (talk) 14:14, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- Just to go WP:THE it reads "When a proper name is almost always used with capitalized "The", especially if it is included by unofficial sources, the article "The" should be used in the name of the corresponding Wikipedia page as well. For instance, this is true for the names of some musical groups:"ARTEST4ECHO (talk) 14:19, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- Just because you closed your talk page, doesn't mean I'm going away. If I have to take this up the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution I will. You are wrong and those pages are wrong again.ARTEST4ECHO (talk) 14:50, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- Just to go WP:THE it reads "When a proper name is almost always used with capitalized "The", especially if it is included by unofficial sources, the article "The" should be used in the name of the corresponding Wikipedia page as well. For instance, this is true for the names of some musical groups:"ARTEST4ECHO (talk) 14:19, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- You need to STOP. You are going against the consensus. At least wait to undo everything until you have a chance to get comments.ARTEST4ECHO (talk) 14:14, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- It is not a "basic grammatical error" when the word "The" is part of the legal Name [of "the]. The clear consensus is "THE" is capitalized. You are wrong.ARTEST4ECHO (talk) 14:11, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- Many, many organizations have "The" in their official title, but the normal rules of grammar are that within the context of the body of a sentence, the word "the" is not capitalized. If MOS LDS says otherwise, it is wrong. Now please stop reverting my correction of your basic grammatical error. BMK (talk) 14:04, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Regardless of who's right here, you (ARTEST4ECHO) should not be recruiting people to support your position. See WP:CANVASS. If you want broader community input on the question, a neutrally worded RfC is the proper way to go. Also please note that there have been very divisive and long-running arguments over capitalization of 'The' mid-sentence, including an arbitration case about the proper capitalization of "The Beatles". Down that path lies a lot of frustration and loss of community goodwill. It would be wise for both sides of this argument to be flexible and recognize it for the minor issue that it is. alanyst 14:56, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- Canvass say "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus."
- However, I will move the issue to a "broader community input on the question" as suggested Here--ARTEST4ECHO (talk) 15:01, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- Bringing other people into the conversation is fine, but just make sure (a) that you're not just targeting a group of people likely to take the position you favor; and (b) that you're using a neutrally phrased notification so that you aren't predisposing them to support your position. Your message to those you notified was asking them to take your side in the matter, which does violate WP:CANVASS, and you might think about rephrasing it. alanyst 15:49, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
June 2014
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
[The] Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
Hello; because you commented in this discussion, I thought you might be interested in participating in this discussion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:12, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
July 2014
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
"Mormon" to LDS
In historical quotes that use the word "Mormon," I'm not sure that it is a good idea to automatically change it to LDS or a variant thereof. If the original speaker said "Mormon" why is it OK to change it here? Would you consider reverting your changes that you've made to historical quotes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anomicworld (talk • contribs) 20:35, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- Which page? If I did that it was purely by accident. You are correct that quotes are not changed to LDS. If you tell me what page I would be happy to put it back.ARTEST4ECHO (talk) 14:03, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, ARTEST4ECHO. Appreciate your note. The page I was referring to is the John A. Hartford Foundation. Anomicworld (talk) 16:57, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- Fixed. Again my apologies. I didn't realize it was a quote.-- ARTEST4ECHO (talk) 17:54, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
August 2014
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Re WP:NFC#UUI #1 deletions
I've come across many images of mugshots that you have tagged for deletion due to being a violation of WP:NFC#UUI #1. So far I have deleted them because in these situations they are replaceable. That being said, it is not always the case that living persons have the ability to be replaced by free photos. There are cases, very very few however, where the person may be in a situation that it would be absolutely impossible for a free photo to be taken. For instance there was once a prisoner who was in solitary confinement for 23.5 of 24 hours per day. He only had interaction with his lawyer and one guard. Consensus determined at WP:NFCR that it was impossible for a free photo to be taken and the image was kept. The key, in these very rare situations, is to include these reasons in the FUR under the section for why it is not replaceable. After reading the above, you're probably thinking "why is this guy boring me by telling me something irrelevant." Really, I just want you to know that, as with everything non-free, we do not have any 100% hard and fast rules and there are always exceptions. I do not want you to get the wrong idea and start nominating the image for deletion just because the subject is alive. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 21:03, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
- Honesty, thank you for your input. However, I have to disagree with you as I have yet had a case where, after taking the image of any living person to WP:NFCR, even prisoners, that it wasn't deleted, even in cases like you describe. Unfortunately, WP:NFC#UUI #1 doesn't list what you describe as an exceptions to that rule. The only exception listed is "For some retired or disbanded groups, or retired individuals whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance, a new picture may not serve the same purpose as an image taken during their career, in which case the use would be acceptable."
- You talk about cases of solitary confinement. Even in those case, the images I've seen put up for WP:NFCR were deleted. For example, all non-free versions of Osama bin Laden, someone who was deep in hiding for over a decade, were deleted until he died. Even the FBI most wanted poster was deleted because it was argued that the image couldn't have been made by a FBI agent due to him being in hiding. Even the FBI sending in a OTRS e-mail saying it was Public Domain, didn't stop it from being deleted.
- Ironically, I personally think it is silly and I actually agree with you. There should be some exceptions to the rule. There are times that getting an free image is impossible. For example, two of three image of Mormon Fundamentalist leaders I uploaded, before I understood this rule, were deleted due to WP:NFC#UUI #1. I even uploaded them using the old upload method where Wikipedia automatically added the {{Replaceable fair use disputed}} template to images of all living people. The Admin who reviewed my uploads agreed with my logic that the person was unable to be photographed due to the secretive nature of the sects they belonged to. The images were then on Wikipedia for several years, only to be WP:NFCR and deleted for violation of WP:NFC#UUI #1. The fact that they were alive is all that mattered to the WP:NFCR admins. The only image to survive did so because the person died in the mean time.
- However, I understand that deleting the images the way I did (using {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}) may have made you and others nervous. I will start using WP:NFCR again. I only felt it wasn't necessary because of several WP:NFCR cases that already decided that the images of prisoners, even those in solitary confinement, did not qualify for an exception. It seemed to be a wasted of the administrators time.
- If you can think of a way to get Wikipedia to change this policy, I would be more than happy to support it. Again, I think there should be some way to make legitimate exceptions, without having them re-listed for WP:NFCR and deleted. However, I'm just a editor. --- ARTEST4ECHO (talk) 16:21, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
- There are a few specific things I want to respond to real quick. WP:NFCR has changed a bit in the past year. These days I'm about the sole admin who closes the discussions ad WP:NFCR. I am going to look through the archives, but I have closed at least two discussions in the past year where the outcome in a situation like this was that we could keep the file, but only if it would be truly impossible to take the photo and the FUR reflected this perfectly. I'm sorry I don't have examples on hand. Each case is specific to that situation and I can come up with good arguments both ways for these persons.
- As for how you nominated them, {{Replaceable fair use}} (what I think you meant above) is fine, but I just think your wording of a unilateral "they're alive, so there must be free" is fair enough for speedy. Most of the ones you tagged didn't even have explanations as how there were not replaceable. That by itself is enough to speedy. You are more than welcome to nominate them for deletion or you are welcome to come to WP:NFCR. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 19:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm curious as to how you know her and about her. I too live in Tooele and Mrs. Grimm has had a huge positive impact on our community. I also wish to thank you for creating her Wikipedia page, if indeed, you did. Sheks a wonderful lady and I'm happy to know, the World can now know this!
Justin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.248.77.31 (talk) 17:04, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
- I'm sorry I think you are confused. I didn't create her page, User:Spray787 did. I'm just the last editor, and my change was a typo correction and nothing more. --- ARTEST4ECHO (talk) 17:51, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Redirects
Re: this edit: You may want to peruse our guideline about how you shouldn't "fix" links to redirects that are not broken.—Kww(talk) 15:06, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks. I find it funny, I've been told the exact opposite before. However, now that I have a WP page to point to I wont do it anymore.--- ARTEST4ECHO (talk) 16:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
September 2014 - December 2014
September 2014
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Discussion at Talk:Church of Christ (Latter Day Saints)#List of early church members
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Church of Christ (Latter Day Saints)#List of early church members. Thanks. —Asterisk*Splat→ 00:53, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
LDS Growth graph
I have seen that you created the LDS growth graph for the membership statistics over time. The graph only lasts till 2010. Could you please update the graph? Thanks --Kathedra87 (talk) 19:16, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
November 2014
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Template:meeting
Would you be offended if I nominated Template:meeting for deletion? This is a template you created 13 December 2007, and it is not being used anywhere at this point. —Asterisk*Splat→ 20:56, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- To be honest, I don't even remember creating it. I have already {{db-author}}ed it.--- ARTEST4ECHO (talk) 18:51, 4 November 2014 (UTC)