There seems to be some differences in the pages that I've seen between
and
to the point where some of the links that existed go to one, and some with the extra first comma redirect to Hugh Nibley. Can you please verify the name of the book? Note googling mentions of the book at BYU doesn't help, those are split as well!!! Naraht ( talk) 17:19, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
On 24 March 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article No, Ma'am, That's Not History, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that No, Ma'am, That's Not History, Hugh Nibley's rebuttal to Fawn Brodie's divisive biography of Joseph Smith, started a trend of polemics in Mormon apologetics? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/No Ma'am, That's Not History. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, No, Ma'am, That's Not History), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
BorgQueen ( talk) 00:02, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
BRIGHAM NEEDS YOU! | |
Hello, Brother Brigham here.
I couldn't help but notice that you've made some edits to articles about Brigham Young University and thought you might want to become a member of the BYU WikiProject. We're reviving the project and would love your help! To join simply add your name to the participant list and start working on something from the To-do list. If you need any help, don't hesitate to ask another project member. See you soon! |
|
Jmjosh90 06:49, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi Rachel!
Reaching out because I was wondering whether you might know any people at FamilySearch (or might know people who might know people, etc).
I'm always very impressed by how easy FamilySearch makes it to link individuals or even whole families in one go to entries at sites like Find-a-Grave or BillionGraves (similarly to how one can link whole families to census records at one go), and was wondering whether it could be possible for Wikidata to be treated similarly, as a similarly 'valued partner site', with similar linkability, if the right person at FamilySearch could be put in touch with the right person at Wikidata. It seems to me that more linking in each direction could be a real win-win, on both sides.
At the moment, while it is possible to add FS links to Wikidata, current usage falls far behind the linkage from Wikidata to other sites -- see eg these counts of links for C16 and C17 UK people; or the list at d:Wikidata:WikiProject_Genealogy#Identifiers_for_databases showing that there are currently 19,200 links from Wikidata to FamilySeach in total, compared to eg almost 15x that number, 296,500, to the much smaller WikiTree -- despite all the vast range and depth and direct primary-source quality transcription of the entries at FamilySearch.
If FamilySearch users could be alerted when there is a potential Wikidata match, and then were encouraged to confirm or reject the match using the FamilySearch interface (as eg they are with Find-a-Grave), with automatic updating on both sides, it seems to me this could be a real win, with FamilySearch then able to display (and easy maintain) relevant links for individuals to Wikipedia articles on them, Commons categories for them, and/or any of the other databases Wikidata links to; whilst on the Wikidata site systematic linking to FamilySearch would mean much more extensive linking to really detailed and gold-standard vital record transcriptions and other genealogical data.
Do you think this is something that the right person at FamilySearch could ever be introduced to and might be persuadable to go for ? (And if so, who would be good to talk to?) Thanks, Jheald ( talk) 13:37, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
I couldn't resist trying to get the gang together in spite of a hectic life-altering summer, but chose a location more convenient to me this time. Wanna join?
Interested in attending the Great North American Wiknic in Salt Lake City? |
---|
If you are interested in our Utah Wiknic on Sunday, August 27, 2023, please visit
Wikipedia:Meetup/Utah/Wiknic 2023 and add your response. |
KarenJoyce ( talk) 03:50, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
Someone pointed out to me the job application to be a Wikipedia editor at the Y. ( https://hrms.byu.edu/psc/ps/PUBLIC/HRMS/c/HRS_HRAM.HRS_APP_SCHJOB.GBL?Page=HRS_APP_JBPST&Action=U&FOCUS=Employee&SiteId=50&JobOpeningId=126185&PostingSeq=1& ). Looks like you are interviewing for more interns. :) Naraht ( talk) 01:07, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
Given the changes to Zeezrom article by Heidi Pusey BYU is there an article in Category:Book of Mormon people that you consider a model for others? Honestly, the number of entries in that category for which Template:Religious text primary is appropriate seems significantly larger than those for which it isn't.
Zeezrom seems fairly typical. The references are to the primary text, the BoM reference companion (published by Deseret Books) and a book from the Neal A. Maxwell Institute.
I think this is less on Heidi Pusey and more that the majority of people mentioned in the BoM are simply unsuitable for articles due to the lack of reliable secondary sources with multiple points of view. IMO, you aren't going to get a different point of view on Zeezrom . (As opposed to Zelph, which seems just fine) I'll be happy to move or restart the conversation to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement if you want (This may ultimately belong in the Wikipedia:Notability_(Latter_Day_Saint_movement) )
Heidi, please don't take this as a slam on you, the best way I can describe it is you went 27 MPH on a 25 MPH road and that was enough for someone to propose lowering the speed limit to 15 MPH in the future and to add speed bumps. :) Naraht ( talk) 22:21, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
On 21 October 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Songs and Flowers of the Wasatch, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Songs and Flowers of the Wasatch represented a shift in Mormon history toward a "socially-accepted American cultural and religious heritage", according to historian Jennifer Reeder? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Songs and Flowers of the Wasatch. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Songs and Flowers of the Wasatch), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
— Amakuru ( talk) 00:02, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Could you take a look at my interactions with Heidi on her talk page and let me know if it rises to wikistalking (or for that matter Mansplaining)? Naraht ( talk) 14:16, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Whether or not you contribute. I think you should take a look, if only to help explain to Heidi what is going on. Naraht ( talk) 21:17, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Sorry not to see you this weekend at the meetup; sending warm wishes. – SJ + 06:19, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 March 4 § Category:Harold B. Lee Library-related film articles on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 21:42, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
I have become very concerned with the editing of the students in your employ. They seem to be adding mostly devotional literature written by Mormon true believers to Wikipedia rather than high-quality academic sources that properly contextualize the creation of the Mormon scriptures in the nineteenth century. It seems to me that your library probably has many other things in its collection that students could work on that would not run into this problem. The biggest issue as I see it is that many of these students likely come from tight-knit faith communities which may not have engaged with critical scholarship or the mainstream approach to understanding the construction of Mormonism as a new religious movement and all that entails.
Could you have your students work on topics other than Mormonism, please?
jps ( talk) 15:23, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
I also want to alert you to this discussion that I started about whether it is appropriate for Wikipedia to host pages related to your job and the coordinated editing that is occurring surrounding topics related to the faith-basis of the institution at which you are employed. Of course, Wikipedia has no say whatsoever in what jobs BYU has with respect to Wikipedia. But given that the vast majority of people who edit this website do not get paid to do so, it is concerning to me that a group may be collaborating to try to insert material into Wikipedia in the context of an institution which demands a certain fealty to religious belief as a baseline requirement for association.
jps ( talk) 15:28, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
I am saying that we should cite sources and include prose only about ideas that have been noticed by the relevant wider epistemic communities. This includes such contexts as comparative religion, American history, sociology, and the like. Looking at sources which are only noticed in a community dominated by particular ideologies (I'm thinking particularly of those works included only in non-critical Mormon Studies) will lead to promulgating many sources and ideas which have not been subject to critical review. Peer review only works when the relevant experts are consulted, and a work of Mormon Studies that, for example, engages in apologetics is essentially by definition not being reviewed with a critical lens. I'm concerned particularly with the content your students included which is skewed towards works that uncritically accept a faith-based viewpoint (for example, a conceit there is something to be learned about events that happened in pre-Columbian Americas from the text of the Book of Mormon). jps ( talk) 21:48, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) § A personal analysis and proposal. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 12:26, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 16:19, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
By a strict interpretation of WP:OUTING, you should not be posting connections between editors and their real-life identity until they have made such disclosures themselves. I have removed that section of your COI disclosure on your user page as a result. Should the individual in question sign off on the disclosure I will of course reverse my action. Please let me know if you have any questions about this matter (either here, at my talk, or via email). Primefac ( talk) 19:47, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
You write:
March 14, 2024 addition: there has been some question about if I and my students have the intellectual freedom to summarize information that is critical of the LDS Church. This is something I've worried about in the past and have consulted with my supervisors about. We are free to, and often do, summarize reliable sources that are critical or unflattering of the LDS Church and its leaders.
Are your students free to write prose such as "The anachronisms in the Book of Mormon have proved a major stumbling block for members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, causing many of them to leave the Church. [1]" How about an entire article on the subject? How about an entire series on the subject?
jps ( talk) 18:01, 14 March 2024 (UTC) jps ( talk) 18:01, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
References
If a student wrote "It is likely that the Book of Mormon was not the inspired word of God", would they risk discipline? I'm trying to see where (if anywhere) the line is that cannot be crossed. Incidentally, you may check out the NPOVing I did at Tree of life vision which I don't think should be held up as particularly good evidence that students have been doing a good job at critically evaluating sources. They seem caught up in the idea that there are "many ways to interpret" instead of the basic facts that these artifacts have nothing at all to do with the Book of Mormon, right? jps ( talk) 20:06, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
The Resilient Barnstar | |
Rachel, I'm out of the habit of sending barnstars, and I realize this probably isn't the best time, but I want to send some words your way anyway.
I'm sorry for what's going on over at AN/I, and I know it can't be easy for you personally. Being surrounded by a crowd of people who are lobbing accusations, attacking your integrity, mocking you, mocking your religion, criticizing your work, threatening your employment, tag-bombing your articles, and then doing the same for your friends and colleages...it's enough to drive anybody crazy. And I've seen that happen many times. People under this kind of stress and scrutiny often break down and start lashing out irrationally. You, on the other hand, have kept your cool in a way that frankly amazes me. I don't understand how you're able to remain so outwardly calm and rational. That speaks to some inner strength that I can only admire. I don't know if you've read The Coddling of the American Mind by Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt, but if you haven't, I recommend it. Chapter 5 in that book has, in my opinion, a pretty good description of what's going on here. If it's any consolation, these kinds of things are temporary. They arise very quickly, but they will also return to normal, eventually leaving us wondering what everybody was so worked up about. This too shall pass. I can see that you are taking on board the criticisms, admitting fault where there is fault, and making changes where necessary. Nobody could expect more. Thank you for all the work you've done here, and thank you for your example of how Wikipedians ought to behave. ~ Awilley ( talk) 17:27, 15 March 2024 (UTC) |
Eight years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:42, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi, for my own sanity, I am not participating in the ANI discussion further unless specifically asked something. Please ping me if you have a question for me.
My students are currently all working on non-LDS pages. I have some off-wiki work I will be focusing on today and next week. Rachel Helps (BYU) ( talk) 20:51, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi, I'm putting this on my talk page just in case other users who are watching this page are interested in this discussion. @ Valereee, my student just added the paid contribution template to Talk:L. P. Hartley. Is that what you had in mind? Rachel Helps (BYU) ( talk) 21:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Per this ANI discussion, you are indefinitely topic banned from LDS Church-related topics, broadly construed. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 12:41, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
There seems to be some differences in the pages that I've seen between
and
to the point where some of the links that existed go to one, and some with the extra first comma redirect to Hugh Nibley. Can you please verify the name of the book? Note googling mentions of the book at BYU doesn't help, those are split as well!!! Naraht ( talk) 17:19, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
On 24 March 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article No, Ma'am, That's Not History, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that No, Ma'am, That's Not History, Hugh Nibley's rebuttal to Fawn Brodie's divisive biography of Joseph Smith, started a trend of polemics in Mormon apologetics? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/No Ma'am, That's Not History. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, No, Ma'am, That's Not History), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
BorgQueen ( talk) 00:02, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
BRIGHAM NEEDS YOU! | |
Hello, Brother Brigham here.
I couldn't help but notice that you've made some edits to articles about Brigham Young University and thought you might want to become a member of the BYU WikiProject. We're reviving the project and would love your help! To join simply add your name to the participant list and start working on something from the To-do list. If you need any help, don't hesitate to ask another project member. See you soon! |
|
Jmjosh90 06:49, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi Rachel!
Reaching out because I was wondering whether you might know any people at FamilySearch (or might know people who might know people, etc).
I'm always very impressed by how easy FamilySearch makes it to link individuals or even whole families in one go to entries at sites like Find-a-Grave or BillionGraves (similarly to how one can link whole families to census records at one go), and was wondering whether it could be possible for Wikidata to be treated similarly, as a similarly 'valued partner site', with similar linkability, if the right person at FamilySearch could be put in touch with the right person at Wikidata. It seems to me that more linking in each direction could be a real win-win, on both sides.
At the moment, while it is possible to add FS links to Wikidata, current usage falls far behind the linkage from Wikidata to other sites -- see eg these counts of links for C16 and C17 UK people; or the list at d:Wikidata:WikiProject_Genealogy#Identifiers_for_databases showing that there are currently 19,200 links from Wikidata to FamilySeach in total, compared to eg almost 15x that number, 296,500, to the much smaller WikiTree -- despite all the vast range and depth and direct primary-source quality transcription of the entries at FamilySearch.
If FamilySearch users could be alerted when there is a potential Wikidata match, and then were encouraged to confirm or reject the match using the FamilySearch interface (as eg they are with Find-a-Grave), with automatic updating on both sides, it seems to me this could be a real win, with FamilySearch then able to display (and easy maintain) relevant links for individuals to Wikipedia articles on them, Commons categories for them, and/or any of the other databases Wikidata links to; whilst on the Wikidata site systematic linking to FamilySearch would mean much more extensive linking to really detailed and gold-standard vital record transcriptions and other genealogical data.
Do you think this is something that the right person at FamilySearch could ever be introduced to and might be persuadable to go for ? (And if so, who would be good to talk to?) Thanks, Jheald ( talk) 13:37, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
I couldn't resist trying to get the gang together in spite of a hectic life-altering summer, but chose a location more convenient to me this time. Wanna join?
Interested in attending the Great North American Wiknic in Salt Lake City? |
---|
If you are interested in our Utah Wiknic on Sunday, August 27, 2023, please visit
Wikipedia:Meetup/Utah/Wiknic 2023 and add your response. |
KarenJoyce ( talk) 03:50, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
Someone pointed out to me the job application to be a Wikipedia editor at the Y. ( https://hrms.byu.edu/psc/ps/PUBLIC/HRMS/c/HRS_HRAM.HRS_APP_SCHJOB.GBL?Page=HRS_APP_JBPST&Action=U&FOCUS=Employee&SiteId=50&JobOpeningId=126185&PostingSeq=1& ). Looks like you are interviewing for more interns. :) Naraht ( talk) 01:07, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
Given the changes to Zeezrom article by Heidi Pusey BYU is there an article in Category:Book of Mormon people that you consider a model for others? Honestly, the number of entries in that category for which Template:Religious text primary is appropriate seems significantly larger than those for which it isn't.
Zeezrom seems fairly typical. The references are to the primary text, the BoM reference companion (published by Deseret Books) and a book from the Neal A. Maxwell Institute.
I think this is less on Heidi Pusey and more that the majority of people mentioned in the BoM are simply unsuitable for articles due to the lack of reliable secondary sources with multiple points of view. IMO, you aren't going to get a different point of view on Zeezrom . (As opposed to Zelph, which seems just fine) I'll be happy to move or restart the conversation to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement if you want (This may ultimately belong in the Wikipedia:Notability_(Latter_Day_Saint_movement) )
Heidi, please don't take this as a slam on you, the best way I can describe it is you went 27 MPH on a 25 MPH road and that was enough for someone to propose lowering the speed limit to 15 MPH in the future and to add speed bumps. :) Naraht ( talk) 22:21, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
On 21 October 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Songs and Flowers of the Wasatch, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Songs and Flowers of the Wasatch represented a shift in Mormon history toward a "socially-accepted American cultural and religious heritage", according to historian Jennifer Reeder? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Songs and Flowers of the Wasatch. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Songs and Flowers of the Wasatch), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
— Amakuru ( talk) 00:02, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Could you take a look at my interactions with Heidi on her talk page and let me know if it rises to wikistalking (or for that matter Mansplaining)? Naraht ( talk) 14:16, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Whether or not you contribute. I think you should take a look, if only to help explain to Heidi what is going on. Naraht ( talk) 21:17, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Sorry not to see you this weekend at the meetup; sending warm wishes. – SJ + 06:19, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 March 4 § Category:Harold B. Lee Library-related film articles on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 21:42, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
I have become very concerned with the editing of the students in your employ. They seem to be adding mostly devotional literature written by Mormon true believers to Wikipedia rather than high-quality academic sources that properly contextualize the creation of the Mormon scriptures in the nineteenth century. It seems to me that your library probably has many other things in its collection that students could work on that would not run into this problem. The biggest issue as I see it is that many of these students likely come from tight-knit faith communities which may not have engaged with critical scholarship or the mainstream approach to understanding the construction of Mormonism as a new religious movement and all that entails.
Could you have your students work on topics other than Mormonism, please?
jps ( talk) 15:23, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
I also want to alert you to this discussion that I started about whether it is appropriate for Wikipedia to host pages related to your job and the coordinated editing that is occurring surrounding topics related to the faith-basis of the institution at which you are employed. Of course, Wikipedia has no say whatsoever in what jobs BYU has with respect to Wikipedia. But given that the vast majority of people who edit this website do not get paid to do so, it is concerning to me that a group may be collaborating to try to insert material into Wikipedia in the context of an institution which demands a certain fealty to religious belief as a baseline requirement for association.
jps ( talk) 15:28, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
I am saying that we should cite sources and include prose only about ideas that have been noticed by the relevant wider epistemic communities. This includes such contexts as comparative religion, American history, sociology, and the like. Looking at sources which are only noticed in a community dominated by particular ideologies (I'm thinking particularly of those works included only in non-critical Mormon Studies) will lead to promulgating many sources and ideas which have not been subject to critical review. Peer review only works when the relevant experts are consulted, and a work of Mormon Studies that, for example, engages in apologetics is essentially by definition not being reviewed with a critical lens. I'm concerned particularly with the content your students included which is skewed towards works that uncritically accept a faith-based viewpoint (for example, a conceit there is something to be learned about events that happened in pre-Columbian Americas from the text of the Book of Mormon). jps ( talk) 21:48, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) § A personal analysis and proposal. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 12:26, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 16:19, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
By a strict interpretation of WP:OUTING, you should not be posting connections between editors and their real-life identity until they have made such disclosures themselves. I have removed that section of your COI disclosure on your user page as a result. Should the individual in question sign off on the disclosure I will of course reverse my action. Please let me know if you have any questions about this matter (either here, at my talk, or via email). Primefac ( talk) 19:47, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
You write:
March 14, 2024 addition: there has been some question about if I and my students have the intellectual freedom to summarize information that is critical of the LDS Church. This is something I've worried about in the past and have consulted with my supervisors about. We are free to, and often do, summarize reliable sources that are critical or unflattering of the LDS Church and its leaders.
Are your students free to write prose such as "The anachronisms in the Book of Mormon have proved a major stumbling block for members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, causing many of them to leave the Church. [1]" How about an entire article on the subject? How about an entire series on the subject?
jps ( talk) 18:01, 14 March 2024 (UTC) jps ( talk) 18:01, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
References
If a student wrote "It is likely that the Book of Mormon was not the inspired word of God", would they risk discipline? I'm trying to see where (if anywhere) the line is that cannot be crossed. Incidentally, you may check out the NPOVing I did at Tree of life vision which I don't think should be held up as particularly good evidence that students have been doing a good job at critically evaluating sources. They seem caught up in the idea that there are "many ways to interpret" instead of the basic facts that these artifacts have nothing at all to do with the Book of Mormon, right? jps ( talk) 20:06, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
The Resilient Barnstar | |
Rachel, I'm out of the habit of sending barnstars, and I realize this probably isn't the best time, but I want to send some words your way anyway.
I'm sorry for what's going on over at AN/I, and I know it can't be easy for you personally. Being surrounded by a crowd of people who are lobbing accusations, attacking your integrity, mocking you, mocking your religion, criticizing your work, threatening your employment, tag-bombing your articles, and then doing the same for your friends and colleages...it's enough to drive anybody crazy. And I've seen that happen many times. People under this kind of stress and scrutiny often break down and start lashing out irrationally. You, on the other hand, have kept your cool in a way that frankly amazes me. I don't understand how you're able to remain so outwardly calm and rational. That speaks to some inner strength that I can only admire. I don't know if you've read The Coddling of the American Mind by Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt, but if you haven't, I recommend it. Chapter 5 in that book has, in my opinion, a pretty good description of what's going on here. If it's any consolation, these kinds of things are temporary. They arise very quickly, but they will also return to normal, eventually leaving us wondering what everybody was so worked up about. This too shall pass. I can see that you are taking on board the criticisms, admitting fault where there is fault, and making changes where necessary. Nobody could expect more. Thank you for all the work you've done here, and thank you for your example of how Wikipedians ought to behave. ~ Awilley ( talk) 17:27, 15 March 2024 (UTC) |
Eight years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:42, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi, for my own sanity, I am not participating in the ANI discussion further unless specifically asked something. Please ping me if you have a question for me.
My students are currently all working on non-LDS pages. I have some off-wiki work I will be focusing on today and next week. Rachel Helps (BYU) ( talk) 20:51, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi, I'm putting this on my talk page just in case other users who are watching this page are interested in this discussion. @ Valereee, my student just added the paid contribution template to Talk:L. P. Hartley. Is that what you had in mind? Rachel Helps (BYU) ( talk) 21:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Per this ANI discussion, you are indefinitely topic banned from LDS Church-related topics, broadly construed. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 12:41, 13 April 2024 (UTC)