User talk:Earlysda

Great Controversy
Thank-you for your recent additions to The Great Controversy (book). The material appears to be very helpful, although I do not have the firsthand knowledge to know for sure. Please verify or attribute the sources in general. Your comments are also written neutrally. Also, the lead section is used for a short summary of the overall article, and your comments belong in the main section. Again, your additions seem to be a major improvement. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 06:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Your edit on Ellen G. White
Hi! I reverted your edit on White's page. You changed an internal link from the United States page to the American page, which is not a direct link to an article, rather a disambiguation page. As a rule, disambiguation pages are to be avoided as wikilinks. The pipe of "American" stays the same in the article, only the link is changed.

Also, on the "Spirit of Prophesy." I reverted that because for one, your change erased links to spirit and prophesy; also, through Google I couldn't find a source that capitalised it without it being in a title. Can you show me a source? I'd like to keep the wikilinks, but it's clumsy in a title, so I'd like to see a source for making it that way. Thanks... Auntie E.  15:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Ellen White
Let me practice here before i make my first ever wikipedia talk:

Hello Aunt Entropy, I'm sorry to not preview my changes well enough to see what i was doing in editing the "United States" part. Please accept my apologies. I will try to do better in the future. Earlysda (talk) 10:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Problems with upload of File:Great-controversy-1858-fascimile-book-cover.JPG
Thanks for uploading File:Great-controversy-1858-fascimile-book-cover.JPG. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 08:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Great-controversy-1858-fascimile-book-cover.JPG
Thank you for uploading File:Great-controversy-1858-fascimile-book-cover.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 website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created [ in your upload log]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 13:35, 17 May 2011 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Musamies (talk) 13:35, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The sun rose
I have reverted your change to the Miller article. If the particular phrase is significant, it should be quoted, with a cited source, ideally with some brief explanation about the significance of the expression itself. It should not be used as general prose.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 11:00, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.
 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia&.
 * To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [ Articles for creation help desk], or on the [ . Please remember to link to the submission!
 * You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.
 * Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! EricEnfermero  Howdy! 09:00, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Walter Veith
I just added an English Walter Veith page originally translated by machine from German and then edited by myself. My German in non-existant, so the page needs help. Some sentences were incomprehensible to me. And many of the references are still English machine translations of German sources. These need to be changed to English sources if possible. The page will be examined by other editors to see if it passes as a valuable page. Veith's creationism must be played down until it is accepted. Even then, links to creation or evolution pages is not advised. Anti-creationists are rabid here. Play up the SDA connection. --RoyBurtonson (talk) 23:50, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Walter Veith concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Walter Veith, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. 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 at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 20:57, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Walter Veith


Hello Earlysda. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Walter Veith".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply and remove the  or  code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code:, paste it in the edit box at this link , click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 00:00, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

July 2020
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to The Great Controversy (book), without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:05, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on The Great Controversy (book); that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:16, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * I have already attempted discussion. Then my edits got reverted again.  I have curated this article for over 13 years, and know well what belongs on this article and what doesn't.  If you understand the situation, please try to help.  Threatening is not helpful.Earlysda (talk) 03:28, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at The Great Controversy (book) 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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:57, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 30
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Uriah Smith, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ellen White. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 30 September 2021 (UTC)