User talk:Deaddebate

Merge proposal at Talk:Corianton
Hello, I just saw the merge proposal at WP:PM. You might want to consider leaving a note at WP:LDS and WP:CHRISTIAN for inviting inputs. Thank you. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:24, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh, please sign the merge proposal at Talk:Corianton. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:25, 24 November 2016 (UTC)


 * As you may have noticed, though my account is a few years old, I've become very active again in the last 3 months. I'm learning and experimenting, trying to grow beyond the immediately obvious editing. Yes, I have made a few mistakes in my attempts to be bold. Thanks for the feedback. Deaddebate (talk) 15:59, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

KV edits
I reverted your edits because they switched parts of the article to US english while leaving most of it in British english. I couldn't care less which language conventions are used, but, it should be one way or the other throughout the article. Regards, DMorpheus2 (talk) 17:27, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Understood, but that was the smallest part of the changes. You could have easily undone that small portion and retained the other edits. I'll review the article again sometime in the next week. Deaddebate (talk) 18:00, 27 November 2016 (UTC)


 * It's not my job to clean up after you, sorry. DMorpheus2 (talk) 22:04, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Clarification on OR
I feel there may have been misunderstanding about a statement I made in a discussion between the two of us on a talk page. I said that I cringe when I see bare scripture verses cited to prove one point or another, which I think falls under WP:OR. More particularly, it falls under WP:PRIMARY. However, just because bare scriptures are cited does not always mean the statement qualifies as OR. To quote the PRIMARY: "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia 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. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source." It's the interpretation from scripture verses that constitutes OR. On the other hand, if we directly quote a scripture verse, saying that it says "such and such" and don't get into interpretation or analysis then it isn't OR. I hope that clarifies my earlier statement. --FyzixFighter (talk) 06:53, 9 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Please let me begin by saying I am grateful for all the feedback you have provided these past few weeks. I freely acknowledge, as you have no doubt already determined, I am not especially familiar with the various Wikipedia policies, standards, style manuals, and programming. The language I use may appear very direct, but it is only because I seek to be clear. My actions are an embracement of a bold mentality, and through that method, I am learning. With that introduction, please understand I have no animus in this response.


 * Many articles currently: 1) Use direct scriptural quotation when it seemingly fits current LDS Church positions, and 2) Discourage direct scriptural quotation when it seemingly contradicts LDS Church positions. I find it increasingly difficult to trust any directly cited scripture, especially the Doctrine and Covenants, as current LDS Church positions and policies have varied over time, sometimes significantly, from the original language. Specific examples include the tithing rate, polygamy, textual changes from the "Book of Commandments", and the age of the Earth. In short, Mormonism deserves a more stringent interpretation of the primary source requirement to not synthesize a religious text.


 * Therefore, I argue that any citation of scripture within Mormonism should include some reference to scriptural commentary or current policy. For example, in Baptism in Mormonism, stating that the LDS Church continues to follow the explicit guidance of D&C 20:73-74 should be re-inforced with the actual manual, found in Gospel Principles, or another modern publication. An example of an exception would be any historic position around the time the relevant scripture was published.


 * To demonstrate that secondary sources for commentary on Mormon scripture and policy are readily available, I have compiled a list of publications.


 * BoM
 * The Guide to the Scriptures
 * Gospel Principles
 * Nibley's Teachings of the Book of Mormon, Parts 1, 2,3,& 4
 * FARMS
 * Journal of Book of Mormon Studies
 * Roberts' Studies of the Book of Mormon
 * Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture
 * Dialogue Journal
 * Sunstone
 * Book of Mormon Authorship: New Light on Ancient Origins
 * Rediscovering the Book of Mormon


 * Bible
 * List_of_biblical_commentaries
 * Benson
 * Lange
 * Meyer
 * ICC
 * Schaff
 * Cambridge
 * Gray 1
 * Gray 2


 * I intend to add this list to the LDS Project Talk page at some point, for further discussion and reference. Deaddebate (talk) 06:30, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

William Oswald
I have gone through and found at least one article that I think demonstrates that Oswald was a notable land-use law attorney in Utah.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:58, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

The God Plant (2018 film) moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, The God Plant (2018 film), 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 " " 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 follow the prompts on the Articles for Creation template atop the page. ... disco spinster   talk  20:12, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:The God Plant (2018 film)


Hello, Deaddebate. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "The God Plant".

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 and remove the, , or  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.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. CptViraj (📧) 09:38, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:39, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Pahoran for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Pahoran, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Articles for deletion/Pahoran until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 15 March 2024 (UTC)