User talk:RogerRoger1

Mormon fundamentalism articles

While I appreciate your efforts to distinguish between LDS Church and Mormon fundamentalist people/organizations, what you are doing is a little bit excessive, in my opinion. There are dozens of Latter Day Saint sects, and we can't provide a disclaimer on every Mormon fundamentalism article for each one. Why single the LDS Church out for a disclaimer? Unfortunately, doing so would be POV. In any case, wikilinks and provided in the articles and the Mormon fundamentalism articles make the points you are making clearly enough. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your POV that it's POV. What about the additional info on Jeffs conviction? More POV. I guess I'm simply being driven off Wikipedia. Seems like you have an agenda.

I'm not trying to "drive you away" from WP. The kind of changes you are making are sensitive though and are the types that should be discussed before before being restored when another editor objects. I'm trying to help you out, not punish you in any way. But if you just keep insisting on adding the information, your edits begin to take on the appearance of WP:VANDALISM, which I know is not your intent. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm new here. How can I help clarify postings? You indicated that we can't give disclaimers for all religions. Doesn't any clarification help clarify? If each of us provides a little, we can provide them all. I really think I was helping the reader understand obvious misconceptions. How did my edits (the last one's) miss the mark?

Probably the best thing to do if an editor objects to an edit you do and reverses it is to go the article's Discussion page (see the tab at the top of the page when you're at an article page. You could simply ask why the edit was reverted, or you could present your opinion as to why the edit is necessary or desirable. Then other editors (apart from just you and the objector) can give input and a consensus can be reached on whether/how to include it.

The distinguishing issue has been previously discussed in a number of Mormon fundamentalism articles, and it has been a thorny issue in the past. The problem is that there are 100s of "Mormon" sects, and on every article about every one of these sects it's not really practical to provide a disclaimer about how this group is not related to each and every other Mormon sect. That's one reason Wikipedia has links in the text -- so you can click on a word and find out more about it. The links provide the information we just can't provide in the text of an article. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I give. While there may be a bunch of fundamentalist Mormon sects, there is only one Mormon church with significant membership and worldwide visibility. It's very easy for misunderstandings to be perpetuated with partial information. The recent hubbub related to the US presidential primaries is evedence.

It seems to me that process you describe (getting consensus before any posting can be added) means that a diligent objector can keep any additional information from the reference unless others proactively agree. Makes me wonder how anything is improved.

By the way, my reference to Jeffs' conviction detail should have been reverted based on your indicated objections.

I'm sure I can't possibly win this "discussion" so, I give.

By the way, how were you able to find every edit I made and do it so effectively?

The Mormon fundamentalist articles just happen to be on my "watchlist" — using the tabs at the top, you can "watch" articles and be notified of when changes are made. Alternatively (I didn't do this but you can do it), you can go to a user's page and select "User contributions", which will let you see all the editor's edits. Consensus is not needed for every edit and generally you don't have to get it to make changes — but if someone objects to your edits, that's the usual process. The majority of edits done are not controversial. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input. I'll try not to loose enthusiasm for editing.

Good — there are tons of LDS articles, so I'm sure you can make a contribution to those or other articles. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

August 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to MSNBC has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. CCG _(T-C) 22:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Lakester VW lands speed record holder 1963.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Lakester VW lands speed record holder 1963.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

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

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

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

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

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:17, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]