You have a good point. Do you have any suggestions on how I can include the information while making it known that it is merely speculative? I had written the information myself (with citations and hedging language, of course) but removed it because I was worried about someone picking a fight. You seem to be a seasoned Wikipedian and I was wondering if you have any advice on presenting the information in a way that doesn't spark confusion in readers.
Unfortunately, the normal way to include information that is speculative is to not include it. (I'm sorry, I've forgotten the article that I was referring to. Coriantmur??? :( )Note, according to my wife's Bishop, I'm not a member of the Church, but I am a member of Rockville Ward. That should give you and idea of where I'm coming from on this. :) I know that scripture gets somewhat different rules, (treating it as either Fiction or Non-fiction is sure to insult someone.) As for the other, I think most of the information about Shiz is already on the page, but if there is something that isn't there already, it probably should be combined.
Thank you for your perspective; I think it's valuable to get other people's viewpoints so Wikipedia can be neutral. I agree that the fiction/non-fiction distinction is a delicate issue. Heidi Pusey BYU (talk) 22:59, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And that does feed into the entire situation with the BoM in terms of most places in the New Testament (and a good number in the Old Testament) have locations generally agreed on (or at least close, like the Garden of Gethsemane).Naraht (talk) 18:24, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article is much better than when you started editing it. I agree with the last edit, links should almost *never* be in section headers. I've personally had to do some acrobatics to deal with that rule, but I agree with it.Naraht (talk) 18:21, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Book of Mormon monetary system 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 until the discussion has finished.
) Wow. I've seen uglier AFDs, but not many. Your response has been reasonable, you can certainly include a keep if you want to, but make sure you contribute an appropriate comment. (And while I don't believe the BoM is true, treating it on wikipedia differently than anything in Genesis prior to Abraham isn't, in my mind, useful or appropriate)
Is there any chance you would be willing to step away from Mormon topics? Are there resources at the library for which you work that are about topics unrelated to Mormon beliefs? I think those might be a more appropriate outlet given WP:NPOV problems I am seeing with your edit history vis-a-vis Mormonism in particular.
What are you seeing in my edit history? Please realize that I worked with others to fix the NPOV as part of the editing process. I admit that there were times I used the wrong word in a few articles (such as "exist"--I really shouldn't have used that word and it's thankfully not in there now), but I'm learning how to phrase things better. That is a natural part of learning how to edit. In other words, I've made mistakes and fixed them, sometimes with the help of someone else. If there are more NPOV problems that you've identified other than this, I want specifics. Heidi Pusey BYU (talk) 22:40, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to the COI declaration on your user page, your employment is specifically to edit Wikipedia on Book of Mormon topics, and to do so on behalf of Brigham Young University. Am I understanding correctly? 1.141.198.161 (talk) 00:50, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote "on behalf of Brigham Young University" and your question made me realize that my wording was inadvertently misleading. I don't edit on behalf of the university. I just attend the university and work at its library, where I edit. I've changed my description to be more accurate by saying "at Brigham Young University." Thank you for wanting to clarify that! Heidi Pusey BYU (talk) 21:54, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad that the wording was not intended to mean that your contributions are literally on the University's behalf, thanks for clarifying that. Is your position formally tied to editing on Book of Mormon topics? Rachel has commented at ANI that the topics will be changing, and I understand that as an employee you need to take direction on what work to do, but I am asking about existing-to-now directions on topics. This is separate from, but related to, direction on content / method and the importance of policy, where it seems clear that Rachel has been providing support and guidance on working within WP methods / policies, etc. Thanks for engaging with me, I am sure this whole extended discussion / incident / choose a suitable descriptor has been both surprising and stressful. 1.141.198.161 (talk) 22:34, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My employment is not formally tied to the Book of Mormon, though my team has been working on Book of Mormon topics for the past few months (we, the students, get to choose which ones we want to do). Because this has been what we’ve been working on, the majority of my contributions have been in that area. However, as you said, Rachel is moving us to other topics (I'm now working on Ranulf Higden). As a result I'll need to change my descriptor. Does that answer your question? Heidi Pusey BYU (talk) 22:23, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you, Heidi. I'm glad to hear that you weren't constrained to Book of Mormon topics. I think it is wise that Rachel is looking for other areas that fit your interests but have less potential for problems. Best wishes, 1.141.198.161 (talk) 11:07, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Links to user pages and sandboxes
Please do not introduce links in actual articles to user pages or sandboxes, as you did at Ranulf Higden. Since these pages have not been accepted as articles, user pages, sandboxes and drafts are not suitable for linking in articles. and such links are contrary to the Manual of Style. These links have been deleted, please do not re-add any such links, thank you - Arjayay (talk) 16:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good to know, thank you! I will avoid such practices doing so in the future. (Not by way of justification but by way of explanation, I made the link because I was unsure on how to attribute the picture since it was made by a Wikipedia user and released into the public domain.) Once again, I thank you for fixing my error and directly contacting me about it. Heidi Pusey BYU (talk) 21:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Potential topic ban for Rachel Phelps
Hi there. I am not LDS, but I am religious, and I know how to follow policy on contentious topics without getting in trouble. It is very hard to write about anything from a religious perspective. A few months ago, I saw one of your articles get approved at DYK by a fairly experienced editor, even though I wouldn't have approved it myself. See Talk:Saints_Peter_and_Paul_Seminary for a similar example. If you want, you can write articles related to the Book of Mormon in your userspace, and I'll move it to the mainspace if I don't think the edits will cause controversy. I am not sure if the community would allow this though. Scorpions1325 (talk) 23:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In order to comply with the topic ban, we need to avoid edits by proxy like the ones you suggest. In 6 to 12 months, if I am able to appeal the TBAN, I would love to learn from your expertise in writing on religious topics. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:51, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't call myself an expert, but I have added content to articles that could be described as a pro-religious POV. Here is one example. Here, I cite one of the most respected scholars in Bible Studies (who was also a priest) who does not resort to traditional Catholic apologist arguments to defend the concept. In fact, he doesn't really defend it. He just says that there is not enough conclusive evidence to fully disprove it. Unfortunately, it took me 45 minutes to find a source that used that exact argument (It was also my argument). I expect this to be harder for LDS topics. I hope this helps. Scorpions1325 (talk) 18:30, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 21% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
Hi Heidi. I've reviewed your DYK and it should go ahead into the main page in due course: well done! I preferred ALT1 but if you really want to use the original hook that would be OK by me but I suggest you include the exact quote in the article, as I've mentioned on the nomination page. You can comment at Template:Did you know nominations/A Modern MephistophelesMike Turnbull (talk) 16:42, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources
Hey, if you are having further discussions about a GA review outside of the review page it would be great if you could involve the nominator. I only found out about your reliable sources discussion after another editor made a decision about it when I really should have been involved in that discussion from the start. Thanks, adamstom97 (talk) 14:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adamstom97, I'm so sorry about that. I wasn't intentionally trying to exclude you from the discussion. I'm fairly new to Wikipedia and am still learning the ropes. I was having a hard time figuring out how to handle the source, and I thought I was going about it in the right way. Now I see that I wasn't. Thank you for bringing this up. In the future I will include the nominators in these sorts of discussions. Heidi Pusey BYU (talk) 21:07, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
