User talk:BayShrimp

Welcome

Hello, BayShrimp, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! --Andrewaskew (talk) 04:29, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.

Sun Myung Moon

Hi. Please feel free & welcome to join the conversation about the Moon article on Moon's talk page. I reverted your edit because Wikipedia articles reflect the sources for information, notability, and importance. The first paragraph, especially the lede sentence, should encapsulate the subject and the subject's notability succinctly (see: WP:MOSBIO) - NONE of the big sources - NYTimes, USA Today, NPR, Washington Post or Associated Press - mention Tongil group so putting it in that first paragraph doesn't represent the importance the cites put on it - even if it was the largest holding. EBY (talk) 14:01, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will bring up the question on the talk page as you said. BayShrimp (talk) 21:14, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BayShrimp. Please help me to delete the info Salley777 placed about the founder using the reference of HD Jongkyo - a Korean religious magazine which is not a reliable source since even the Korean Supreme court fined them because this magazine has been arousing a lot of troubles in Korea by fabricating information. I will really appreciate. Bookslover7 (talk) 02:28, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion for Timeline of Sun Myung Moon

An article that you have been involved in editing, Timeline of Sun Myung Moon, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:03, 5 July 2013 (UTC) Steve Dufour (talk) 16:03, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Stephen A. Kent, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Children of God (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:18, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

September 2013

Hello, I'm Sam Sailor. I noticed that you recently removed some content from The Challenge of the Cults and New Religions without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry: I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, you can use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Neither deletions were "trivia", and they were well sourced. Sam Sailor ^Sing 08:25, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Pixar Theory

As the concept of a "Pixar Universe" preceded the Negroni thesis by a decade, I seek your opinion about THIS. Thanks, Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:52, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I can fold my little sourced article into the main topic Pixar and we'd have a suitable redirect target for The Pixar Theory? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:10, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lifespring

Hello BayShrimp: I partially restored the Spinoffs section and fixed a nonworking link within it. Does this address your concerns? Hill's Angel (talk) 22:02, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again BayShrimp: I am confused about your revision of 20:13, 16 August 2013. The previous edit included a discussion of a survey which asked for a response to this statement: "The cults I am most concerned about are…"

Of 53 respondents, 28 answered, "Scientology, est/Forum, and Lifespring.”

You removed this material, writing that it was “off-topic” and “really about Scientology.” It seems to me that the material is on topic and about Scientology, est/Forum, and Lifespring.

Please explain. Hill's Angel (talk) 00:09, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scientology is probably 100 times better known than the other two. BayShrimp (talk) 00:46, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am still not following you. How well Scientology, est/Forum, or Lifespring are known seems irrelevant to me. Why would that lead you to remove the material about the survey? Hill's Angel (talk) 16:18, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because if Scientoloy is 100 times better known than Lifespring (that's just my estimate of course) then if 28 people said they knew about one or the other it is likely that all 28 are talking about Scientology. BayShrimp (talk) 18:52, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now I see. I have no idea about their relative popularity, especially in the DC area in 1993, when the survey was conducted. The Washington Post Magazine did a cover article on Lifespring in 1987. In 1991, when Clarence Thomas was nominated to the Supreme Court, the Post did a profile of his wife, Virginia Thomas, and mentioned her unhappy experience with Lifespring. Also, ABC's 20/20 (a nationally broadcast, prime-time show) did a very critical segment around 1980.

Do you have anything more than your estimate? If not, I am inclined to restore the survey stuff. Hill's Angel (talk) 23:54, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that people look to an encyclopedia for definite information on a topic. This is does not seem to be definite information. On the other hand it is well sourced and impartially presented. BayShrimp (talk) 07:39, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As you indicated, the survey has shortcomings. One possibility would be to 1) restore the deleted information and 2) add the following footnote:

“The survey allowed respondents to choose “Scientology, est/Forum, and Lifespring” as their answer, but presented no opportunity to distinguish among the three organizations. Thus, a respondent who was unconcerned about or unaware of one or two of the organizations but concerned about the third would not have been able to make this distinction on the survey.”

What do you think? Hill's Angel (talk) 19:07, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would be better to have that note than to just present the info on the survey without it. I still think the data does not tell us much about Lifespring. BayShrimp (talk) 00:57, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it does not add much. If I were trying to shorten the Lifespring entry, it would be one of the first things I would cut. But I do think it adds something. The entry does a decent job of conveying that Lifespring came under some fire from the media, attorneys representing people who died or suffered psychological damage, psychotherapists, and group process researchers.

But how about the religious community? Lifespring was around for quite a few years. Were there no clergy who were concerned during all that time?

The survey, with its faults, demonstrates there was at least a small response from the religious community. If it is not included, readers might infer that no one in the religious community was concerned. Hill's Angel (talk) 14:58, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again: Just wanted to let you know that I looked at some of the history of this page. Whether the survey should be part of the entry was part of a long exchange between editors some years ago. Weaknesses in the survey noted by you were pointed out then too. With that it mind, I've decided that at least for the time being I am not going to restore it. Thanks for the discussion. Hill's Angel (talk) 18:59, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Unification Church litigation

Category:Unification Church litigation, which you created, has been nominated for merging to Category:Unification Church. 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. RevelationDirect (talk) 18:55, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hipster racism

Good luck with that argument, although I support you fully. Unfortunately our colleagues disagree: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hipster racism.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:55, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mass suicide, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Virginia University (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:48, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 20:43, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Serpent seed, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Daniel Parker. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:25, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sun Myung Moon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Patriot. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reverend Moon POV template

Thank you for bringing the matter to my attention. The tag has been removed. --Novoneiro (talk) 02:26, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, BayShrimp. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

December 2016

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Katie^talk 20:06, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Junko Sakurada book cover.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Junko Sakurada book cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:45, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Tia Lorentzen" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Tia Lorentzen has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 23 § Tia Lorentzen until a consensus is reached. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:29, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]