User talk:Kovesh

Original Research

Kovesh, I have noticed that a large portion of your edits on the Archaeology and the Book of Mormon are Original Research or Synthesis - please read the Wikipedia policy WP:OR to make sure you are in line with standard practice on the wikipedia. Once I get some time I plan on looking through all of your references - anything that qualifies as Original Research will be deleted. --Descartes1979 (talk) 06:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you have noticed, I have been supplying references and commentary as needed, to every instance called out as “original research”. Let’s take one at time. What specifically is your current concern?

Regards,

Kovesh (talk) 21:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incongruent

I am not sure I agree with your recent comment on the Archaeology and the Book of Mormon talk page. Everything I have read points to the Mesoamerican setting as the most commonly accepted one. See the quote below from the Limited geography model (Book of Mormon) article.

"Based on extensive textual analysis and comparison of the Book of Mormon limited geography model to existing geographical regions, time-lines and cultures, the majority of LDS scholars now agree that the Book of Mormon geography is centered in Mesoamerica around the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, in the area of current day Guatemala and the southern Mexico States of Tabasco, Chiapas, Oaxaca, Veracruz, and the surrounding area" (Sorenson, John L (1985), An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon, Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book and The Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies - pg. 35 and 36).

--Descartes1979 (talk) 22:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It may be the most commonly accepted setting for now. It probably wasn't the most commonly accepted in the past. Will it be in the future? Please understand that I cannot go on all that you have read. Are you planning to conduct a poll? Here is a questions to ask a large LDS population: Is the United States in the Promised Land of the Book of Mormon? How do you think most LDS will answer that question?

Kovesh (talk) 22:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phyllis Carol Olive

From a quick review of the article Archaeology and the Book of Mormon, it appears that all of the references to the Great Lakes theory seem to originate from Phyllis Carol Olive. After looking into her background, it does not appear that she has any archaeological training. Is there anyone else that advocates the Great Lakes theory? --Descartes1979 (talk) 07:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Descartes,

Olive is certainly not the only one to propose a Great Lakes setting for the Book of Mormon. I can name at least three other authors. The biggest problem you will run up against here is of course Joseph Smith. Do you want to find the origin of a Finger Lakes / Great Lakes setting for at least one Book of Mormon land? Start with the Doctrine and Covenants.

Regards,

Kovesh (talk) 04:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not interested in your arguments and original research Kovesh, I am interested in making the article accurately reflect current research on the subject. Perhaps you can cite an established archaeologist or anthropoligist that advocates this view? If indeed it is as common sense as you say it is, then perhaps a BYU or FARMS PhD has written a paper on this right? That is all I am looking for. I don't think we should quote any old LDS enthusiast who has written a book - there are a lot of people with no training that have written about such things, who conveniently ignore evidence that opposes or refutes their hypotheses. Established scientists are much more balanced and are more likely to arrive at the truth. That is why Wikipedia has a no original research policy, and looks for cites from third parties and established authorities to back up the facts in their articles. Who are these other authors you are citing? Are they archaeologists? If not, why should I care what they think? --Descartes1979 (talk) 15:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

There is a proposed merge that I think would interest you at Talk:Limited geography model#Several merge proposals - my take. I am posting this notice because I saw that you were a recent editor at one of the pages listed below:

--Descartes1979 (talk) 17:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:The Voyage of Lehi copy.png

Ignore the notice because I found an original version with good licencing and removed the deletion tag on the image and here. ww2censor (talk) 17:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incivility

If you continue to post uncivil remarks and personal attacks such as this, I will report you and suggest that you receive a block or ban. --Taivo (talk) 19:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Book of Mormon lands.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Book of Mormon lands.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 19:20, 19 February 2012 (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) 13:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Zarahemla for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Zarahemla, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zarahemla until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]