User talk:Twunchy

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 McKay^talk 07:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

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.)
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)[reply]

John Foxe artist?

That was rather unexpected...can you possibly flesh out the authorship section on your Joseph Smith Translation artwork, what medium, computer created etc?? I actually like it...how's that for a shocker? Well done. Twunchy (talk) 00:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the compliment, but I was more facilitator than artist. When we were discussing the copyrighted image, another editor wrote, "The image is used solely as an artist's illustration of an imagined scene. It could be replaced, without loss of information, by a free drawing you or I or Jimbo Wales could create, of a guy sitting on a chair and holding a hat before his eyes. Heck, that's not even very difficult to draw, I could do one in five minutes." That got me thinking of a younger relative of mine who has artistic gifts. She created the image in PhotoShop (which I've added to the Wikimedia entry), but she didn't think it good enough to put her name on.

I was thinking about asking permission to use this this image, but you'll probably note the problems right away: Smith is on the stairs instead of upstairs, the space is way too large for the framed cabin in Harmony, and nothing that was dictated to Martin Harris is actually in the Book of Mormon anyway. All the best, John Foxe (talk) 13:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Book of Mormon Lead Section

Hi Twunchy:

I wonder if you will provide some explanations of your recent edits to the Book of Mormon lead section.

Frankly, they seem to me to make it longer but without improving the clarity.

I'm tempted to do some reverts but I think it better to ask.

Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my entry on the talk page...don't be too impatient, I can only type and create so fast. Twunchy (talk) 17:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feeble attempt at a new Wikipedia Policy

I'd love your input for a new policy for Wikipedia regarding religious articles. Take a look at what I've started and lend me any input you wish. It's at Wikipedia:Religion. Thanks, Twunchy (talk) 22:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the invitation. I appreciate what you're trying to do and in principle would like to help, but I think my own strength is getting down in the trenches with nouns, verbs, and participles.--John Foxe (talk) 14:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Invite

{{WPLDS invite}} —Eustress ^talk 17:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stick with references

Hello Twunchy, I think your position on Golden Plates is strengthened by stating that Wikipedia is not a source for truth. We quote experts in the field or report on the statements of reliable, reputable references. Attempting to qualify something as a myth, false, truth, etc. is not within Wikipedia's purview. Any attempts to do so are POV by default. I would make the edits, but currently I will not edit any of the articles in my watchlist for a period of time. The position being fostered by some new editosr is quite common on all religion-related articles. It is nothing new and each of them has already argued this postion before elsewhere. This is not a secular, humanist website; Wikipedia is strictly neutral. Cheers. --^StormRider 23:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed Category

Regarding: 22:17, 13 January 2010 Twunchy (talk | contribs) (16,822 bytes) (Undid revision 337634595 by ARTEST4ECHO (talk)undo inflammatory POV category). Please see Talk:Latter Day Church of Christ

FLDS See Also section

I reverted the removal of the link to the Wiki article on Coram Non Judice - the talk page spoke of direct external links to blogs, not about internal links to other articles. Thanks, BlueSooner (talk) 00:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sealed Portion

Please look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Sealed Portion of the Book of Mormon. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sacred Texts

Hey Twunchy,

I was wondering if you could take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Criticism_of_Mormon_sacred_texts .

Your view on the matter would be appreciated.

Thank you,

--CABEGOD 01:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:UU Singers Formal revised.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:UU Singers Formal revised.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 22:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of automated file description generation

Your upload of File:Actors in "Savior of the World" (January 2007).jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 11:30, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Med ogdentemplenewsmall1 17Feb10.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Med ogdentemplenewsmall1 17Feb10.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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 18:19, 3 October 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) 13:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Flds Temple.jpg

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

If you are the copyright holder for 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-en@wikimedia.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-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} 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 Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 23:04, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Twunchy. 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]