User talk:TanRabbitry

April 2024
Hello,

I have been able to start editing again. I will abide by what I said about disclosure of membership in an organization whose page I am editing. In addition, I will try to figure out how to "propose" a change if it is a major one. I still maintain that being a member of the ARBA and editing its page is closer to a Texas Rangers fan editing that page than someone with a conflict of interest. Just because I am member, that does not mean I can not be completely neutral. Nevertheless, I am also going to include as many citations in such articles as I can, to prove objectivity. Thank you.

Blue Imperial rabbit
Article Wizard

Proposed deletions
Over the last couple days, you've proposed deletion of Karen B. Westerfield Tucker and Bäckadräkten. Both articles were running at DYK on the main page when you proposed the deletions. There are two major issues with your PRODs: Further spurious PRODs, particularly on articles as they are displayed on the main page, will likely be treated as disruptive. I encourage you to refrain from further proposed deletions and to review this helpful guide instead. If you have questions, ping me here. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:08, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) In both cases, your PROD rationales were erroneous and demonstrated a poor understanding of Wikipedia's notability policy. In the first case, you failed to acknowledge the multiple factors that contributed to the individual's notability and mistakenly believed she had only authored a couple chapters in a few books. In the second, you mistakenly stated that the article was wholly promotional and lacked indications of notability, despite extensive cited independent, significant coverage and discussion of critical viewpoints.
 * 2) Proposed deletions are almost always inappropriate for articles that make it to the main page as DYKs, as they require substantial vetting before being allowed to run. The preferred venue for a well-sourced, 1+-week-old article is AFD.


 * @Pbritti
 * I accept that the first article is in fact notable. When I read it, it seemed to me to be extremely obscure due to the following reasons:
 * 1. For one of the books ("The Oxford Guide to the Book of Common Prayer: A Worldwide Survey"), the subject of the article contributed one chapter among 58 other authors.
 * 2. For the other book, ("The Oxford History of Christian Worship") she co-edited the book, wrote a chapter and co-wrote the final chapter.
 * 3. The editors and the other authors of the former book do not have articles.
 * 4. She won an award from one organization and served as president of another.
 * You maintained the following, which convinced me otherwise:
 * 1. The fact that other related pages do not exist is inconsequential.
 * 2. The award received is prestigious and the organization she presided over is important.
 * I accept you are correct in those things. I also would further state that the articles on the two organizations should be expanded and the award perhaps should even have its own page. Thank you for explaining the notability standard.
 * Now in regards to the other proposed deletion, I saw both articles on display at the "home" page. Both seemed to be pretty trivial at the time (though once again, I have changed my mind on the former). However, the second article is, I maintain, not especially notable, but more importantly it is promotional. No one could read it and not recognize the celebratory tone of the article. It is not neutral. No, it doesn't list prices, but otherwise may as well be a sale description. I may have been mistaken about the other article, but at the absolute least the second article is very poorly written and not in the tone of an encyclopedia.
 * Once again, if you wrote the first article, I am sorry to have nominated it for deletion. I realize that I misunderstood the standard. But the second is not a good article and, I believe, is beyond repairing. I hope you do not think that I am attempting to damage Wikipedia, my goal is it's improvement and expansion or addition of important subjects. Certainly all editors are fallible and just as I was mistaken in thinking the first article was not needed, others may let a poor article slip through, even unto the "home" page. I had already added the second article where you said, so its deletion could be discussed. I haven't checked, but if it was decided it should stay, I will accept it, even though I believe that consensus would be wrong. Thank you,
 * TanRabbitry (talk) 22:12, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Again, you don't appear to understand that none of this relates to person grievance, but rather the fact that you have repeatedly proposed the deletion of previously vetted articles and left messes for others to fix in failed attempts to create deletion discussions. If you want to delete Bäckadräkten, you must use the AfD process and make Articles for deletion/Bäckadräkten, rather than incorrectly editing the AfD page (which actually ends up editing subsidiary, unrelated deletion discussion pages). I highly encourage you to refrain from attempting to delete any other articles for the flawed and erroneous rationales you've provided. Fundamentally, as a recently unblocked editor with hardly any editing experience, you don't appear to understand what you're doing or how to do it correctly. Perhaps try your hand at some content creation and avoid the complicated behind-the-scenes processes until you have more experience. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:13, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Pbritti
 * I thought I had correctly added the article to that page. I still am not sure what I had missing. I thought that I followed the direction as the article said. I don't know of any other article at the moment that needs deleting anyway.
 * The "block" you mentioned was essentially a mistake. Someone was confused by my original "username" and thought I represented an organization whose page I had edited. I do not. The mistake was reversed and I have made sure to disclose any association with any group whose page I have edited, along with providing plenty of citations. That way there is not any question of a conflict of interest. I hope the explanation shows that the previous mistaken "blocking" is not really relevant to this. Thank you,
 * TanRabbitry (talk) 23:43, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You were not blocked on accident, as your username was a policy violation. That isn't a big deal on its own, but mistakes add up. If you insist on launching a deletion discussion, follow these instructions, taken from WP:AFDHOWTO:

If you remain confused, let me know. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:03, 4 May 2024 (UTC)


 * @Pbritti
 * Ah, I see what I missed. If you say it's within the rules, so be it. I disagree, but as you say, I haven't been editing very long. On another note, I saw you have been editing the SBC article. The SBC is not a denomination (I will elaborate momentarily), that is a common misconception. I did use a primary source, but in accordance with the guidelines. I rewrote the sentence and added a different citation. Now, denomination can be defined in two different ways. The first is as a unified, hierarchical church. The SBC is not, nor has ever been this. The second is as a distinct branch of Christianity. The SBC can be called this, as can Baptists broadly. That is why I previously wrote it was not a denomination in the former sense, instead of just saying it isn't a denomination at all. The new version says the SBC isn't a "hierarchical denomination" rather than saying it isn't a denomination at all, which would be inaccurate in regards to the latter definition.
 * I include a quotation:
 * "A Baptist church is free to decide its own affairs. This freedom is called autonomy, which means self-rule. Paul taught that each church had a full complement of gifts for leadership and service. The Southern Baptist Convention does not ordain ministers, assign ministers to churches, levy contributions to denominational causes, dictate literature and calendar, or assign persons to churches according to place of residence. These are matters for the local church to decide.
 * A free church may freely choose to work with other free churches. In Baptist bodies such as associations and conventions, messengers from the churches to these general bodies meet to share counsel and encouragement, discuss common problems, conduct business, and pool their resources to do ministries together which no one church could do alone. This is un-coerced cooperation."
 * This is a reference to all Baptist churches (which the Baptists would say are the sound ones), not just Southern Baptist churches. Therefore all churches are (or at least should be), in the view of Southern Baptists, autonomous. That is why it is appropriate to note that at the beginning of the SBC article. Thank you,
 * TanRabbitry (talk) 02:08, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * By the way, thank you for fully explaining the process for deletion nomination and for offering to answer other questions on it. TanRabbitry (talk) 02:15, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No problem regarding offering to help. You should learn the process at some point and not showing you how to do it helps no one. Please note the following regarding the SBC:
 * Gallup: "the Southern Baptist denomination remains the largest Protestant group in the U.S."
 * Christianity Today: "The Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) ranks among the world’s largest Christian denominations"
 * ERLC of the SBC: "Southern Baptists give in support of denominational ministries"
 * Religion News Service: "The Southern Baptist Convention may be the nation’s largest Protestant denomination"
 * Members of the SBC may claim, like some members of the Catholic Church, that their group is not a denomination. However, by every metric and according to reliable sources, it is. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:24, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Pbritti
 * Oh, yes, there are many, MANY news references to the SBC as a denomination. As the word can be correctly applied, it is not technically inaccurate, but often misleading. As I said, denomination can just be a Christian group with like-minded beliefs, as all Baptists may be considered a denomination. What is always wrong and is quite irritating is when a news article refers to the SBC as the Southern Baptist "Church," because the author supposes they are a single entity rather than a cooperation. It is similar, I believe, to referring to all Catholic churches as "Roman Catholic." It is a subtle distinction, but a crucial one.
 * In regards to the ERLC reference; first, it is speaking about the former definition of denomination. Second, the article mentions how churches in the SBC are "fully autonomous." Lastly, the ERLC does not have authority to define how the SBC is structured. The key take-away of the article is that the SBC represents the cooperation between local churches. The cooperation comes first and the SBC emerges from and is subservient to same. On a note that isn't a valid source, since it is personal observation, the ERLC has been much criticized from within the SBC for some of their practices and statements.
 * I think the rephrased sentence you wrote fulfills the requirement of the denomination distinction, in that it is clear that the SBC is the former, but not the latter type of denomination. The only bit I am unsure of are the two words "organized as," that may still be confusing to those who are unfamiliar. What about adding the word "fully" before "autonomous?" TanRabbitry (talk) 02:51, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Your position is nuanced but probably not appropriate for the lead (though I appreciate the addition of that portion of the sentence that I also opted to keep). I would not include "fully", as there are conflicting statements from the SBC regarding this. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:13, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Pbritti
 * Yes, I am quite familiar with that case (that is part of the criticism of the ERLC I alluded to earlier). The key line of that article I would say is this: "Both concepts are direct contradictions of the Southern Baptist Constitution and the Baptist Faith and Message." Putting aside personal opinions, any rational person reading either of those documents would come to the same conclusion as the article you referenced. Many leaders (as mentioned in the article) repudiated the incorrect assertion of the ERLC. This is obviously far beyond the scope of the SBC article (and is once again un-referenceable and therefore not applicable), but I would add that much of this is due to alleged poor financial decisions on the part of the NAMB. I would argue that the ERLC's later statement: “As Southern Baptists, we believe that every church is fully autonomous, and that means autonomous from any other church, entity, or hierarchy, and also autonomous from the state," is tantamount to a retraction. I would further say it was a retraction made with their tail between their legs. I would note the phrase "fully autonomous," in that sentence. The SBC is not, in fact, uncertain on this. There are just a few people within it who are plain wrong and the rest of the SBC have and will continue to correct them. TanRabbitry (talk) 03:35, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Pbritti
 * Since you offered to answer questions, do you think you could help with the following? On the Blue Imperial Rabbit page's "Talk" area under the "Picture" section is a request to add a picture. There is a link to an article that includes a photograph of a Blue Imperial. The picture (as you would expect) is from the early twentieth century and I would think, therefore is all right to utilize in the article. Is that accurate, or could it be copyrighted? Thank you,
 * TanRabbitry (talk) 04:07, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming you're talking about the 1905-dated photo of the woman with the rabbit? If so, yes, that image is in the public domain because it appears to have been published in or before 1928 (US copyright law generally considers works published 95+ years ago to be in the public domain). Please upload it to Wikimedia Commons with the appropriate info if you wish to add it to the article! Thanks for asking first about that—copyright is a difficult thing. Other editors are also available to answer similar questions at the Teahouse. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:21, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Pbritti
 * Thank you. I will do so,
 * TanRabbitry (talk) 21:23, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Pbritti
 * Regarding the recent edits, I don't think the changes read as celebratory or anything like that. Rather, it reflects the fact that the preceding line on attendance is now inaccurate, or at least misleading. Also, the increased baptisms are not merely a "silver lining," but reflect hundreds of thousands of new baptisms. According to the referenced article (https://www.christianpost.com/news/sbc-baptisms-near-pre-pandemic-levels-as-attendance-surges.html), those are centered in the South, but the leading state is California, with a 248% increase. In other words, despite a slight overall membership decrease, there has a great deal of growth and renewed participation, in opposition to the last several years' trend. Thank you,
 * TanRabbitry (talk) 21:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I think that you are struggling to recognize the subtle POV visible in the language you inserted. I would encourage you to practice some more on articles perhaps less personally relevant to you and reviewing some of the material on the POV page the help you develop a more trained eye for what Wikipedia considers POV and how to address it in your own work. Also, you don't need to declare your affiliation with the SBC when you edit the page (though the openness is commendable!). If you worry people might accuse you of hiding your affiliation with the SBC in the future, you could insert this userbox on your userpage, which would function as a disclosure. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:37, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Pbritti
 * Hello,
 * I am not necessarily disagreeing with you about the "point of view," but what specifically in what I wrote violated the neutrality rule? I thought that the additional information balanced the seemingly implied message that the SBC is in serious decline by showing that it may be (this is of course, my own opinion) "trimming the fat," so to speak, considering the increased participation and addition of entirely new members. I think that the added information allows readers to form their own conclusion based on the data; be it one of overall growth, decline or balance, depending on their own interpretation of same.
 * Additionally, I always try to include the disclosure because of the issue with my "username." It had originally mentioned a connection to a rabbit breeders organization that I happen to be a member of, whose page I had edited. I was told that this seemed as if I was representing said organization and was advised to disclose any connection in the future. I am glad to know that that I may do so on my own "user page." Often the disclosure takes a significant amount of space in the small "edit summary" boxes. Thank you for directing me to the example. I do not at present have a page to place one as I have not yet created a "user page," but I will have to give it a try. Thank you again,
 * TanRabbitry (talk) 04:19, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Pbritti
 * Hello,
 * I just wanted to make sure that you saw the above message. Thank you,
 * TanRabbitry (talk) 22:49, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Rabbits
Many rabbit-related pages are sadly lacking. There are whole breeds without a page. The American Rabbit Breeders Association page is very bare, many care or feeding sections are wrong and there is vandalism everywhere. Breed history sections that should be paragraphs of fascinating information are one or two sentences. Where is the article on the rabbit historians (Bob Whitman)? Or rabbit businessmen (Edward Stahl)? What about the commercial rabbit industry (Pel-Freez)? There isn't even a page on rabbit shows. This must change. It will take a long time, but it will be worth it. I hope there are some interested in this amazing animal. Thank you,

TanRabbitry (talk) 07:48, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Rabbit exhibition
Thank you for your work on Domestic rabbit. Upon your recommendation I have started drafting the article Rabbit show, but it is in a poor state right now and I am lacking secondary literature (ARBA website is inappropriate for all but the most specific information as it is a primary source). Any improvements or literature recommendations are greatly appreciated. The title "Rabbit show" is chosen rather than "exhibition" to remain in line with Dog show, Hamster show, etc. Recon  rabbit  14:54, 14 May 2024 (UTC)


 * @Reconrabbit
 * I would be happy to create/edit the article. I've raised and shown rabbits for going on nine years, so I know where the most reliable and up-to-date sources may be found. Thank you,
 * TanRabbitry (talk) 18:34, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics
You have recently made edits related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. This is a standard message to inform you that post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Contentious topics. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:46, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

. Jonathan f1 (talk) 20:03, 25 June 2024 (UTC)