User talk:Adri-at-BYU

Conflict of interest

Just a note that as a result of your conflict of interest you are strongly discouraged from editing the article of any topic which is related to the LDS Church, please confine your edits on such articles to the talk page. There are a number of additional restrictions you might want to familiarize yourself with at WP:COI. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HEB, Adri-at-BYU is one of my student editors. Our work falls under the umbrella of Wikipedians-in-residence and I believe that we are editing within COI policy. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 20:26, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no exception to COI for wikipedians-in-residence or student editors. I see a ton of edits to LDS topics, why is that so when all such edits are strongly discouraged? "COI editors are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly, and can propose changes on article talk pages instead." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:31, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In fact as far as I can tell Adri-at-BYU has *never* edited outside the affected topic area[1]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:44, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We have discussed this before. Our employer is the Harold B. Lee Library at Brigham Young University (BYU), and we are not a for-profit institution. We have been editing articles about the Book of Mormon. Democratizing scholarship on the Book of Mormon by summarizing it on Wikipedia does not make money for BYU. I will not be discussing this further with you and I have instructed my students not to respond to you either. If you still have an issue, take me to COIN. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 21:53, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see edits related to both BYU and the library directly in the edit histories (for example a certain "Rachel Helps (BYU)" is the author of 75% of Harold B. Lee Library [2] and there are also edits from a "Cstickel(byu)")... If the argument is that the COI is for the library and BYU but not the LDS topic space in general then why are there so many edits to BYU and the library directly? It doesn't matter whether anyone makes money, thats not how COI works. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:03, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Daughters (2024 film) has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Daughters (2024 film). Thanks! Atlantic306 (talk) 22:55, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Daughters (2024 film) (February 11)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:

Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Daughters (2024 film) instead.

The comment the reviewer left was:

This draft has information that is not in the article and should be added to the article. Please compare and combine the draft and the article. You may ask for advice about comparing and combining a draft and an article at the Teahouse.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Daughters (2024 film) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 00:18, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Adri-at-BYU! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Robert McClenon (talk) 00:18, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Undefined sfn reference in Book of Jacob

Hi, in this edit to Book of Jacob you introduced {{sfn|Hardy|2020|p=172,179}} but there is no such work "Hardy 2020" listed. There is a Hardy 2023, and a Green 2020, so perhaps you meant one of those. As it is the error means nobody can look it up, and adds the article to Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors. If you could fix the error it would be appreciated. DuncanHill (talk) 17:13, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I have updated it to the proper reference. Adri-at-BYU (talk) 19:14, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please avoid adding original research and apologetics to articles

I.e. [3] where you linked to a websites search to show you couldn't find the article. Please use reliable secondary sources to back up statements made in wiki voice. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 07:55, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback! The article previously had a different search that didn't work so I fixed it before I got to further editing, and I understand now I should've just taken it out! I will avoid doing things like that in the future :) Adri-at-BYU (talk) 19:09, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider stepping away from Mormon articles

I understand that you are employed by the library at BYU. Are you allowed to write on non-Mormon topics? I ask this because it seems to me that a lot of your contributions are of the sort that fall short of high-quality scholarship about the writing and invention of the sacred texts of Mormons specifically as this is contextualized as a New Religious Movement of 19th Century American society. Instead, you seem to be including a lot of unattested to commentary like this which looks like it is mostly apologetics and the equivalent of preaching in a small group study of Mormon scriptures. Devotional literature of this sort should really only be included in Wikipedia if others have noticed and contextualized it. jps (talk) 15:19, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm waiting on consensus from the other discussions right now as to what topics I can edit. I have tried my best to be unbiased in my writing but it seems like it hasn't come off that way unfortunately. Like mentioned in the other discussions, opinions vary greatly on how to write about religious works on Wiki and it's quite difficult to know how to present them properly. If there were more specific rules, I would happy to follow them. In my mind, this editing has been trying to improve pages and give people access to learn if they are curious about (whether in a positive or negative way) beliefs different than theirs, but I can see how from the other side it looks like proselyting. I recognize a lack of sources addressing the range of opinions, especially the fact that most people believe the Book of Mormon to be fiction. There are varying interpretations even among church members. I have included what I can find, and if the consensus ends up being that we can't have Book of Mormon pages because there aren't enough sources on the other side of things, so it goes. Additionally, anything I have written is what I read about, not my personal opinion, and I have used many sources of interpretation that I don't particularly agree with.

I'm happy to clarify anything you might be wondering about and I'm also happy to listen to any specific suggestions you might have! Adri-at-BYU (talk) 19:48, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Moods (book) has been accepted

Moods (book), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as B-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a fantastic rating for a new article, and places it among the top 3% of accepted submissions — major kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

OhHaiMark (talk) 20:06, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]