User talk:Epachamo/Archives/2024/January


Looking for your comment on sources

I keep watching the changes at Anachronisms in the Book of Mormon and was wondering if you should post your thoughts on sources at the talk page there. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 17:06, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Urim and Thummim (Latter Day Saints), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Martin Harris (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:21, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Lost 116 pages

As I briefly mentioned in my edit summary, WP privileges secondary sources over primary, so a scholarly book about something trumps the testimony of someone who was actually there. There's both a certain craziness and a certain common sense reason for that policy. As for your attempt to explicate the controversy over this matter, I don't think any one would complain so long as it's confined to the footnotes.John Foxe (talk) 16:26, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

John Foxe, thank you for the courtesy of taking the time to explain your reasoning on my talk page. I agree and understand the secondary sources over primary. I think there are other reasons why my edit should stand that were not very clearly articulated. I've added those reasons to the talk page on Lost 116 Pages, hopefully they are better articulated. Epachamo (talk) 02:45, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of references to seer stones in the Latter Day Saint movement history, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Martin Harris (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:01, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:The black hammer.gif

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:The black hammer.gif. 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. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:50, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

File:The black hammer.gif listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:The black hammer.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:24, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of references to seer stones in the Latter Day Saint movement history, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pearl of Great Price (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:55, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cunning Folk Traditions and the Latter Day Saint Movement, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Steele (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 14:52, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Could you take a look at this please?

Anti-Nephi-Lehi could use a clean-up. The first sentence was just re-written by a new editor - this one.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:PeanutHat#Your_userpage. I know absolutely nothing about this group so the only thing I'd be able to do is more or less reduce it to a smaller stub, not a good idea. Maybe merge it with Lamanites and turn it into a redirect? Or I could at the Wikiproject talk page if you're too busy. Doug Weller talk 09:21, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

@Doug Weller:, I'll take a crack at it, I am going to have to do some research though, I don't know of many secondary sources that discuss it. Merging with Lamanites is not a bad idea. Epachamo (talk) 13:48, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
I'll defer to your judgement. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 10:33, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
@Doug Weller:, I think I'm done with the re-write. If you could take a look it would be appreciated. Epachamo (talk) 03:23, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Editor's Barnstar
Thanks for your great work at Anti-Nephi-Lehi. Doug Weller talk 17:55, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I am truly honored! My first barnstar, thanks! Epachamo (talk) 21:34, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Anti-Nephi-Lehi

Hi, I saw that you posted on the library to-do list looking for feedback on Anti-Nephi-Lehi. I think I'm the only person who watches that page so you're stuck with me, haha. One thing I noticed is that you use the Book of Mormon itself as a source. If you can, it's better to use another source that summarizes the events in the Book of Mormon (because interpretation of religious texts varies, even if you're simply summarizing). Of course, there are times when it is appropriate to quote scripture directly. Ten Commandments in Catholic theology is an FA and I used it to help teach myself best practices about quoting scripture. Of course, finding a neutral source of a summary of the Anti-Nephi-Lehis is difficult. For the LDS Church, The Book of Mormon Reference Companion has a relevant entry. Now that I'm thinking about it more, I'm not sure of the best way to go about it.

I agree that you could easily merge Ammonites with the Anit-Nephi-Lehi page. However, the section on cultural significance is pretty long. It makes me wonder if it would be better to put information on pacifism and the Latter Day Saint movement on its own page. I can tell that you've done a lot of research! I know how much work that is. If you want to keep working on it, the next step is to thread those beads of research into longer paragraphs (the paragraphs under Literary Analysis look a little short). Also, the "there is widespread agreement" with the six sources borders on original research, and looks a little like overciting. I'd say choose the four best, or if one or two reference the others, that should be sufficient. Overall a very interesting read! I'm just sad that I can't give it a closer look. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:56, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Image moved

I've moved your image to Talk:Joseph Smith for discussion. Vsmith (talk) 16:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Primary source included

On the arda viraf, I included a link to the original source and "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. " which is true in this case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hippypink (talk • contribs) 18:20, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Image without license

Unspecified source/license for File:Joseph Smith Phrenology Measurements.png

Thanks for uploading File:Joseph Smith Phrenology Measurements.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot (Talk • Contribs • Owner) 02:46, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Your to-do Women and the Priesthood article

Hey, I saw your to-do article of Women and the Priesthood in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, and I would like to help you write the article. PeanutHat (talk) 21:19, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

@PeanutHat I think that would be great!!! I would love that. I think I'm about a month or two out before I will have time to start on it (I'm finishing a couple other projects right now). For a title, I was thinking of "Women and Priesthood in the Latter Day Saint Movement". Go generic and have it include other branches, and if there is enough material, then create a specific one for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The transition of the Community of Christ to ordaining women is an interesting story, and would not fit in one about just the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Thoughts? Epachamo (talk) 01:53, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
@Epachamo Sounds great. I'll be there to help when you need it. PeanutHat (talk) 15:29, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Phrenology and the Latter Day Saint Movement, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Taylor (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:17, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of List of non-canonical revelations in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on List of non-canonical revelations in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/indianpolygamyrevelation.htm and http://signaturebookslibrary.org/the-joseph-smith-revelations-14-appendix-e/. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Celestina007 (talk) 01:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Barbara Snow (therapist) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Barbara Snow (therapist) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Snow (therapist) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

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. CommanderWaterford (talk) 15:57, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Good Job, Epachamo!

I just wanted to say "good job!" on the Joseph Smith Papyri article. The charts are really nice. (A few years ago, I worked on the Critical appraisal of the Book of Abraham, and I still find the subject matter fascinating.)--Gen. Quon (Talk) 19:50, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Joseph Smith Papyri edit

You posted a revert on an edit I posted on the Joseph Smith papyri, but I'm not sure I understood the gist of the revert comment. You posted "This article is about what Joseph Smith thinks was a revelation, not what Royal Skousen thinks is a revelation. Royal Skousen believes Smith himself thought it was a revelation, but was mistaken about the facsimiles."

The post I put up was that the evidence from the original texts of the Book of Abraham scribal documents such as we have them show that the references to the fascimiles in the current Book of Abraham version used today were both actually NOT part of the original text of the Book of Abraham. This fact does not really have anything to do with what Joseph Smith believed or not. He may have believed that he had a revelation to interpret the part of the fascimiles that he did, the evidence seems to so indicate. The original text evidence just indicates that the text of the Book of Abraham does not actually reference the fascimiles when looking at the original text itself, so it is an important fact based on the original documents that is appropriately posted on that Wikipage. Perhaps the wording could be revised to make this more clear. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:29, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

  • @Geneva11: I had several problems with that particular edit that I'd happy to discuss.
1. The source was not super scholarly. It was Royal Skousen's curriculum vitae, not peer reviewed for sure.
2. Even if it were, I felt the summary misrepresented what Skousen was saying. From the source https://humanities.byu.edu/wp-content/uploads/royal-skousen-J2019.pdf:

The Book of Abraham was a revelation given to Joseph Smith, who later (mistakenly thinking it was a translation from the papyri he had in his possession) tried to connect the revealed text to the papyri by inserting two sentences, verse 12c and verse 14, into Abraham 1. The secondary nature of these two inserted sentences can be directly observed in the photos of folios 1a and 1b in the document identified as Ab2. Verse 12c is totally inserted intralinearly, not partially (as incorrectly represented in the accompanying transcription – and without comment). Verse 14 is not written on the page as are other portions of this part of the text (instead, it is written flush to the left), which implies that it is a comment on the papyri and that it was added to the revealed text. Overall, these results imply that all the facsimiles from the papyri (1-3 in the published Pearl of Great Price) should be considered extracanonical and additions to the revealed text of the Book of Abraham, not integral parts of the original text of the book

3. From what I get is that Skousen believes that Joseph Smith thought it was a revelation, but made a mistake. Skousen felt like the facsimile translation was not revelation. Skousen felt that Smith inserted references to the facsimilies within the text that were not inspired. Smith himself was the editor of the periodical they were first published in. Smith gave every indication that they were indeed revelation. Skousen's opinion is far and away NOT the general scholarly opinion, and even within the Latter Day Saint movement his discovery is not new or even agreed with. It is on the fringe.
4. We need to be careful with anything from Skousen. He has done some really good work with the Joseph Smith Papers for example, but he also has written a lot of apologetics which are not appropriate for Wikipedia. The source really matters with him. Epachamo (talk) 16:51, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I find it interesting and concerning that your edits consistently remove content critical of the LDS church, and attempt to frame critics of the LDS church in as poor a light ad possible. Eudiamonia5 (talk) 13:09, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

@Eudiamonia5: I invite you to take another look at this particular section. I am literally being questioned by Geneva11 for removing what I felt was LDS Church apologetics. Epachamo (talk) 15:05, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

More details on Degrees of Glory reversion

Could I link to the Arda Viraf page on WP? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Arda_Viraf#Plot_summary — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hippypink (talk • contribs) 02:55, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Universalism and the Latter Day Saint movement, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Murray.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:21, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Jeremy Runnels article overly critical of Runnels

I find your recent article about Jeremy Runnels overtly critical of Jeremy and attempting to frame him in as poor a light as possible. Example, your recent edits changing his statements to be "criticisms" or creating an entire section of the page about his seminal work, the CES letter but providing no link to this work. Eudiamonia5 (talk) 13:16, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

@Eudiamonia5:: NPOV is tough. It is truly not my intention to paint Jeremy Runnells in a poor light. If you feel like there is a better way to say it that frames him in a more NPOV light, by all means I welcome you to make the change. As far as links, there are actually TWO links in the article to the CES Letter, and do not feel there should be more based on WP:EXT. Keep in mind also that this article is just two days old, and there is much that should be added. Epachamo (talk) 14:59, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Perhaps this will get me started into Wikipedia. I stumbled on this article, and the tone was clearly biased. I checked who wrote it, then checked your other edits, and sure enough, it was a returned LDS missionary, faithful to the LDS church. I understand being a faithful member of a church does not automatically equal bias, but this article sure supports that assumption is often valid.


I am new to wikipedia. It is interesting to know what is the process of flagging users who appear to have an agenda to their contributions, particularly if this is not listed in their profiles "conflict of interest" section. I'd suggest you go research the Jeremy Runnells you made a page for further, and for wikipedia and yourself, have the integrity to make more edits to your first attempt so it is more balanced. And dies not read like a subtle hit piece. Eudiamonia5 (talk) 15:34, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

  • @Eudiamonia5: First off, you are most welcome to Wikipedia. I hope you do stay and become an editor. There are not enough people working on the LDS Movement, and the more backgrounds and perspectives we get, the closer we will get to the NPOV standard. Before editing, I would encourage you to read the WP:AGF article. Inferring a lack of integrity, or hidden agenda is the antithesis of assuming good faith. As far as my "hit piece" on Jeremy Runnells, PLEASE edit it so it doesn't sound like one, nothing would make me happier. When I created this article, I tried to add as many different view points as I could, and it is not finished. I do not apologize for adding viewpoints that are critical of Jeremy Runnells. Those belong in the article. You should note that I also linked to about a half dozen pages that explained Runnells criticisms of the LDS Church.
As far as me being "faithful to the LDS Church", I'm not sure how you gathered that from my Wikipedia edits. I truly try and put my personal biases aside. For what its worth, I also created the articles on The Black Hammer which is definitely notable, but if I'd had the "agenda" that you suggest, probably would not have been created. Conversely, I hope that article doesn't read as an attack on the LDS Church. Epachamo (talk) 12:45, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

August 2020

A page you created has been nominated for deletion as an attack page, according to section G10 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

Do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject or any other entity. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia, and users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing. Triplettay (talk) 22:41, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I have reviewed the page, and it is not an attack page and does not qualify for CSD G10. —C.Fred (talk) 23:46, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of H. Michael Marquardt

Notice

The article H. Michael Marquardt has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article does not meet notability, and fails WP:BASIC

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Whiteguru (talk) 09:54, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Lectures on Faith and the {{LDS}} template

Thanks for your additions to the {{LDS}} template/LDSverse module, including creating the Lectures on Faith pages on Wikisource and adding the capability to link to them! One heads up about a change I made to the Lectures on Faith part specifically, though, is that the citation structure now mirrors that of the Doctrine and Covenants. It gets slightly weird to write these things consistently since most LDS citations key off of a specific book (e.g., Alma) which is a subpage of (whichever edition of) the Book of Mormon or other standard work on WS, whereas the D&C is the "book" but also the standard work: it's the chapter/section numbers that are the subpages. In other words, in order to avoid the complexity of having a third structure for Lectures on Faith, where the individual lecture is the "book" (i.e., there's an "l5" book just like there's an "Alma" book, but there's no "s5" book for citing to section 5 of the D&C) and the chapter parameter ends up being redundant (the 5 already included in "l5"), I tweaked it to treat the LoF analogously to the D&C.

The tl;dr is that now you can cite the LoF generally as {{LDS|Lectures on Faith|lof}} (=Lectures on Faith), a specific lecture as {{LDS|Lecture|lof|7}} (=Lecture 7), and a specific verse as {{LDS|Lecture|lof|5|2}} (=Lecture 5:2), all analogous to D&C citations.

Hope that makes sense, and I'm certainly open to adjusting things (maybe we should change how it handles both the D&C and the LoF?), but definitely wanted to give you a heads up about why the format is slightly different than you last had it :) Happy to discuss in more detail here or in a more synchronous format, and thanks again for the additions, they're great! ― biggins (talk) 13:35, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

@Biggins: Awesome, thanks appreciate the changes, so much better. Epachamo (talk) 15:40, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

H. Michael Marquardt moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, H. Michael Marquardt, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Onel5969 TT me 21:28, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

The Friend

Thankyou for your work in trying to preserve the article on The Friend. The very fact this article is under any consideration for deletion shows how biases on Wikipedia play out against things connected with children and things connected with minority religions. Your dedicated efforts in trying to preserve this article are greatly appreciated.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:02, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Critical appraisal of the Book of Abraham

This was 95% written by one editor, most of this he wrote at Book of Abraham and then copied into a new article. I tagged it as an essay but he removed the tag. My reasons for seeing it as an essay include the use of the word "finally" several times, which he added, makes it look like an essay to me. But perhaps that's ok.Also for instance : "While the "Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar" only contains an explicit correlation between Egyptian characters[nb 4] and their purported English translation for Abraham 1:11–2:9, the document itself suggests that the hieroglyphs from the Small Sensen papyrus were used to translate much of the Book of Abraham.[72] This is supported by a quote from James Ratcliffe Clark, "

I'm not convinced there should be a separate article and a lot of this appears to be original research, perhaps why it looks like an essay to me. Doug Weller talk 14:37, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: I'll see if I can work on it over the next couple days. There is a bit of non-scholarly apologetics that have crept in for sure, and the background section is way too long. There are also sections, like anachronisms that are missing. Epachamo (talk) 15:19, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. If you could try to remove the essay-style language it would be appreciated. I expect some opposition, but that's not unusual. Doug Weller talk 15:31, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Utah monolith

I am curious what your take is on the Utah Monolith discovered in a remote area south of Moab. What are your thoughts on it? I am of the opinion it may have been for some sort of religious purpose or ceremony or possibly a work of art placed there some artist. Octoberwoodland (talk) 02:49, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

@Octoberwoodland:: It's the craziest thing! Your guess is as good as mine. I'm thinking work of art, given the other works of art scattered through the state seems to be a thing: The Tree of Utah, Spiral Jetty, Sun Tunnels, etc. I wouldn't be shocked if it was some sort of religious thing. Epachamo (talk) 15:27, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Russell Nelson

Please do not unclose the discussion. It went through it's rounds on both the talk page and BLP noticeboard and the result was to exclude the content. Octoberwoodland (talk) 23:13, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

David J. Whittaker

Hi there, I removed your PROD because this one has been at WP:AfD before. You may have a valid point, though, so it might be worth taking this to AfD again. Spiderone 15:33, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Baptism for the Dead

Hi, I opened a discussion on Talk:Baptism for the dead. Feel free to contribute about this topic.--GenoV84 (talk) 23:37, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

@GenoV84: Thanks for the heads up! Epachamo (talk) 23:57, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Comparison of First Vision accounts

Information icon Hello, Epachamo. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Comparison of First Vision accounts, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 19:02, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:H. Michael Marquardt

Hello, Epachamo. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "H. Michael Marquardt".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:26, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Citation

Thank you, for your touchups across the board. I noticed you deleted a full entry on concerns of the citation. I'll add another citation here. The statement doesn't need additional citations, really. Point 4 of the explanations of this original document so states the belief in these timelines. I only wanted a space to add a link to Oliblish. I don't necessarily know if the article should stand alone, I think it is a really interesting element to this belief and maybe enough to be its own article. Encyclopedic in my feel. It is a pretty orphaned article though and where else could I also place one more link but in the Kolob Book of Abraham itself. I do, however, respect the need to make all these systems false and sectarian and I don't want to participate in the useless back-and-forth about why yes or why no. If you think the link to Oliblish could fit in this (or any other) innocuous location of Kolob Book of Abraham, here is a citation that expands on the issue of the thousand years. Again, thank you for your rounds. Fimbriata (talk) 21:05, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Brown, S. (2011). The Early Mormon Chain of Belonging. Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, 44(1), 1-52.

May 2021

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Book of Mormon shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Bishonen | tålk 07:22, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@Bishonen, Please review my conduct, as I am unclear how I violated any Wikipedia policy. Following the the bold, revert, discuss cycle, I have consistently reverted that added content, and explained myself on the Talk page to seek consensus before it was added in. Not sure why the newly added, clearly unencyclopedic content should remain on a stable article before it has been discussed on the talk page. If I am in the wrong, what should I have done differently? Epachamo (talk) 20:38, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm not saying you're in the wrong, Epachamo, or that you violated any policy. You were edit warring, though. I warned the other user and, if only for symmetry, I needed to warn you as well. Bishonen | tålk 21:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC).
@Bishonen. Ok, thanks, glad to hear I didn't violate a policy. Is there a better way I could have handled the situation? Epachamo (talk) 22:39, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
The situation was (and is) difficult, I know. But since you ask: after this edit, I think the best thing you could have done would have been to stop editing the article, since your explanatory edit summaries clearly weren't convincing the new editor. I'd have warned them about edit warring after this edit of theirs at the latest — you can see they weren't aware of the rule. By then there was consensus against their long addition on talk, but I'd hesitate to invoke it, since so few editors were discussing. Instead, you could have sought more input, perhaps via WP:DRN, WP:3O, or WP:RFC. Don't misunderstand me; I'm not saying there was anything lacking in the talkpage explanations by you and User:P-Makoto; they were excellent IMO. But since Jacobalbee persisted, more eyes and (hopefully) a stronger consensus was, and probably is, needed. You can still pick one of those methods. And note BTW that WP:BRD is "an optional method of reaching consensus, "not mandated by Wikipedia policy". It says so right there, and see also WP:BRD-NOT. Finally, while I agree the newly added content is unencyclopedic, I won't add my voice to the consensus against it, as I want to remain able to "admin" the article — not become involved. Bishonen | tålk 09:10, 20 May 2021 (UTC).
@Bishonen, Thanks for the words of advise. Much appreciated. Epachamo (talk) 10:36, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Comparison of First Vision accounts

Hello, Epachamo. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Comparison of First Vision accounts".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 00:22, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

"16th Year"

Hi, Epachamo. I saw that you reverted my edit to the First Vision article, re: Spring 1820 being the 16th calendar year of Joseph Smith, Jr.'s life. You stated that "The relevance of this needs to be attested to by a reliable secondary source." However, the addition was among the Notes, none of which are sourced. Can you please explain your reasoning? Thanks. TheOtter (talk) 15:26, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

@TheOtter: Sure! Per Wikipedia policy (WP:V), everything on Wikipedia should be verifiable. If it is in the notes, then it should still be verifiable. Please don't take my reverting your edit as condoning it on others. I can't find many notes in that article that are not sourced, however. Epachamo (talk) 01:59, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
@Epachamo: I guess you're saying that the notes' citations are in the first column of the table? I guess that's fair enough. But honestly, I do wonder what the problem is with my edit. It's just math. TheOtter (talk) 16:11, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
@TheOtter: The question is, why is it relevant that it is the 16th calendar year of Joseph Smith's life? Why even mention it? Why not add the calendar year when mentioning the age of a person on every article? Just because it is true, or even verifiably obvious, doesn't mean it belongs on Wikipedia (see WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC). Epachamo (talk) 08:10, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
@Epachamo:I get what you're saying, but I think you're failing to consider the importance of both NPOV and NOR. As it currently stands, the note states that:
"Frederick G. Williams edited Joseph's account to take place in his '16th year' (i.e. when he is 15 years old). All other accounts state his age as 14."
We have ample evidence that Williams edited Joseph's account, but I am not aware of him ever explaining what he meant by "in the 16th year of my age". So, by your own argument ("Just because it is true, or even verifiably obvious, doesn't mean it belongs on Wikipedia"), we shouldn't include any single interpretation of that phrase unless we can cite it from primary or secondary sources.
Now, don't get me wrong: I recognize that the page's current interpretation is not only "verifiably obvious", but also how the phrase is generally understood. However, that doesn't mean it's the only way it can be understood, much less that that's how Williams intended it to be understood. The note expressly states that its interpretation is wholly inconsistent with every available evidence, so an equally valid, consistent interpretation is particularly relevant to an encyclopedic article. (To be clear, I see no reason not to include both interpretations, but the rejected interpretation is especially important when the current parenthetical proudly contradicts literally 100% of available evidence—evidence that, unlike the parenthetical, actually is cited.)
This brings us back to your question: "[W]hy is it relevant that it is the 16th calendar year of Joseph Smith's life? Why even mention it?". Well, the relevance is that, according to the current parenthetical, Williams' "16th year" insertion contradicts literally every cited source. Since this "fact" be in question, then one or more alternate interpretations are vitally important to NPOV. There's also a correlative question, though: why are we including a parenthetical, to begin with? I don't currently have access to Jessee or Vogel's works (cited in the corresponding cell of column 1), but even without looking at them, there can be only three logical possibilities:
  • The parenthetical interpretation comes from one or both of these sources, in which case it should be explicitly attributed to said source(s) (e.g. "Jessee points out that…").
  • The parenthetical interpretation comes from some other appropriate source, in which case it should be explicitly attributed to that source (e.g. John Jones points out that…").
  • The parenthetical interpretation comes from original research, in which case it definitely doesn't "belong on Wikipedia".
Regardless of which scenario be accurate, I see no reason to deem one unsourced interpretation relevant while concurrently deeming a contradictory interpretation irrelevant. Either both are relevant (and thus "belong on Wikipedia"), neither is relevant (and thus don't "belong on Wikipedia"), or the one that does "belong on Wikipedia" needs to be sourced. TheOtter (talk) 17:05, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
@TheOtter I actually agree with you that if the interpretation can’t be sourced it should be removed. Thanks for pointing out the section in the table. I recommend putting a “source” tag by it before removing it. I don’t think the table is accurate either. There is only one account that specifies 14 years, the others say “around” or “about” 14 years old. Epachamo (talk) 03:26, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
@Epachamo:, sounds good. I’ve added a [citation needed] tag.

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:06, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:CES Foundation Logo.PNG

Notice

The file File:CES Foundation Logo.PNG has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:DECORATIVE non-free use in Jeremy Runnells#CES Letter which fails WP:NFCC#8. Non-free logos of organizations are usually allowed when they are used at the top of or in the main infoboxes of stand-alone articles about the organization they represent, but their use in other articles or in other ways generally is much harder to justify per WP:NFC#CS. There's nothing about this logo in the Runnells' article that improves the reader's understanding to such a degree that omitting it would be detrimental to that understanding. Even it it were considered to be some sort of book cover, it would still have NFCC#8 issues per WP:NFC#cite_note-3,

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:58, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Barbara Snow and Teal Swan sources

Hi, Epachamo! Since you contributed significantly to the pages of Barbara Snow and Teal Swan, I'd like to invite you for discussion on their talk pages regarding a proper use of specific sources I found problematic for use on Wikipedia.--Onetimememorial (talk) 20:57, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

@Onetimememorial: Thanks for the heads up, I responded on those talk pages.Epachamo (talk) 23:33, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Please review WP:BLPUNDEL before reinstating the disputed item. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:27, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

2022/06

When referencing books, you should use {{Cite book}} instead of {{Cite web}}. The point of using references is not to see the content, but to prove it reliable.

If you don't know what information you should provide about the book, {{cite book |last= |first= |author-link= |date= |title= |url= |location= |publisher= |page= <!-- or pages= --> |isbn=}}can be used as a template. Rastinition Remind you to read {{uw-attempt2}}(talk) 09:58, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I found out that you got a warning in May.Just a reminder that if you get {{uw-3rr}} and {{uw-attempt2}} in the same page, you may get WP:ZZZ whether you want or not.--Rastinition (talk) 10:16, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

@Rastinition: Can you please point me to where this was done? Can you also point to where I was warned in May? I don't think I've ever used {{cite web}}: Empty citation (help) before. Are you sure you have the right person? Epachamo (talk) 22:24, 3 June 2022 (UTC) Epachamo (talk) 22:24, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
I want to make things easier.I confirm 1 thing, is blogspot.com written by a well-known scholar or blogspot.com has credibility?If your answer is yes, do you have any proof?
If you don't have proof, then you shouldn't use blogspot.com, you should replace it with another source. Rastinition (talk) 11:03, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
@Rastinition: Ok, a word of advice, you really need to change the attitude of your responses. Threatening people with wikibreaks whether they want it or not is the opposite of assuming good faith. We need editors, and comments like that are frankly just rude. Epachamo (talk) 06:06, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Regarding your latest edit on Joseph Smith

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Smith&diff=1110700548&oldid=1110625207

I tend to agree with your analysis of these views as WP:FRINGE, but nonetheless they are widely believed. I think perhaps the inclusion of these theories with these stipulations (that historians do not agree with them) might be best, but I am by no means admonishing you to revert your edits. If any edit warring occurs I just think this may be the best course of action. Cheers. KingAntenor (talk) 08:16, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

@KingAntenor:, With the exception of the KJV, I disagree that they are widely believed. If you can find a high quality, reliable source that states that very thing then I would agree to add it back in. As it is though, it is entirely unsourced. We could easily find sources for the King James Version of the Bible. This is mainstream scholarship though, not "critics". The spaulding theory and other books being sources should absolutely not be in the main article, but can still be in other sub-articles provided they are reliably sourced. Epachamo (talk) 08:25, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Okay, well I do not offhand know of any reliable sources that state that the Spaulding theory is widely believed, it was definitely brought up historically, and then shown to be baseless around the 1880s. I just know that it is brought up commonly in critical/apologetic circles. As to them being "widely believed", who is to say. It is probably not, amongst those who have actually looked into the issue (scholarship). My understanding regarding the Spaulding theory is that there is the Manuscript Found, which has no connection with the Book of Mormon, and then there is an alleged missing manuscript that does. I could be wrong about that. I have no idea if there is any basis for such a claim, though. There probably isn't. I can't find anything that specifically states that the Spaulding theory is widely believed or not fringe, and I don't know of any actual numbers or polls in this regard. It is addressed as a gospel topic essay here though, for which there are a number of other sources that may say something to that effect: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/spaulding-manuscript?lang=eng
In any case I agree that it is not warranted for inclusion in the article.
KingAntenor (talk) 08:47, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
@KingAntenor: Agreed. Fawn Brodie put the nails in the coffin on the Spaulding theory in the critical community back in the 1940s. I'm not sure it is still brought up that much in critical circles. It is definitely brought up still in apologetic circles quite a bit, which I'm not sure I understand. Epachamo (talk) 09:16, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

MOS:LDS change discussion

A change to a provision at MOS:LDS regarding capitalization in titles is currently being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters § Midsentence capitalization of the that you might be interested in. Please participate in the discussion there, thanks. --FyzixFighter (talk) 12:57, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

License tagging for File:WesleyPWalters.PNG

Thanks for uploading File:WesleyPWalters.PNG. 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) 07:30, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Information icon Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Martha Beck into Satanic panic (Utah). While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 16:11, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

@Diannaa: Thanks for the tip! I wasn't aware this was a thing, I appreciate you bringing it to my awareness, and I'll be sure to follow the policy in the future. Epachamo (talk) 10:08, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Epachamo. Thank you for your work on Fukui cave. User:GorgeCustersSabre, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

This article is well written and referenced and deals with an important cave.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|GorgeCustersSabre}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

George Custer's Sabre (talk) 08:20, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

@GorgeCustersSabre: Thank you!!! Epachamo (talk) 11:41, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:MichelleRemembersBookCover.PNG

Thank you for uploading File:MichelleRemembersBookCover.PNG. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:12, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

File:MichelleRemembersBookCover.PNG listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:MichelleRemembersBookCover.PNG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:47, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Past Cosmos - Third Opinion

I've asked for a Third Opinion on our discussion. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 15:46, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Book of Abraham

Sorry for the reversion without explanation. It doesn't matter that Book of Abraham is part of the PGP. There is no link from the Template to the Book of Abraham and per WP:BIDI, only articles which have links from that template should contain the template (Templates should be Bidirectional). Either the template should be deleted from the article or the BofA should be added to the template.Naraht (talk) 17:21, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

OK looks like you already took option 1. Not sure it belongs there, but that's a different issue.Naraht (talk) 17:24, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
@Naraht:: I don't think anyone will object. If "soaking" belongs in the template, then the Book of Abraham absolutely belongs there. Epachamo (talk) 20:15, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
If you take a look at the history of the template, at one point there was a recent removal of all of the books, both with BoM and PGP. I'd like Pastelitodepapa to chime in since they are his removal.Naraht (talk) 00:40, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

File:PH 5653 f0001 item 9-Miscellaneous portraits circa 1885-1900.jpeg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:PH 5653 f0001 item 9-Miscellaneous portraits circa 1885-1900.jpeg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. — Ирука13 22:02, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Second Anointing terminology

I understand that private may not be exactly synonymous with secret. Might I suggest "confidential" as a good substitute? My concern with secret is that secret is often used by church critics to deride things relating the Latter-day Saint temple worship. 2601:681:8800:E4D0:80AD:7B1:C258:7625 (talk) 01:24, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Moved conversation to the talk page. Epachamo (talk) 16:29, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Blanking the "Internal map" section

Just FYI, the cleanup tag was added by me about 10 minutes ago, before I thought better of it and blanked the section. The more I stared at it, the more it just seems like the whole section is not recoverable.

But that's alright, we can give it some time to see if anyone else comes and does anything with it. Trevdna (talk) 18:20, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

C rating

They've got well over 500,000 edits, I don't know the criteria they are using but I'd avoid edit summaries that mention vandalism. Doug Weller talk 08:09, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution (second request)

Information icon Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Steganography into List of steganography techniques. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 13:41, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

@Diannaa: I wasn't copying, I was moving from one article to another as clearly stated on the talk page. In the future, it is appropriate to do some due diligence before firing shots. Epachamo (talk) 17:34, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Regardless of the edit to the talk page, we are required to say in an edit summary as to where the content came from when copying or moving content within Wikipedia. — Diannaa (talk) 20:41, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
@Diannaa: I will do better in the future. Epachamo (talk) 22:55, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

License tagging for File:KDF chain.png

Thanks for uploading File:KDF chain.png. 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) 18:30, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Tanner jerald und sandra.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Tanner jerald und sandra.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a copyright violation of http://www.utlm.org/underthecoveroflight_photos.htm and has no credible claim of fair use or permission. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use it — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. --TheImaCow (talk) 08:28, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

@Thelma Cow: You stated, "we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material." This is a false accusation. I did NOT take this picture from their website. I am acquainted with the subject and they gave me the image. They have also apparently posted the image on their website of which I was not aware. Your template message needs to change. Threatening people who edit Wikipedia in good faith chases people off. People we NEED as the life blood of Wikipedia. Assume good faith. As an aside, it's kind of ironic that you are making a point about this particular image, which was taken after the settlement of a lawsuit brought against them for posting "fair use" things on their website. Epachamo (talk) 17:30, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Hickman Home.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Hickman Home.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next seven days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --TheImaCow (talk) 16:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)