User talk:Underneaththesun

This user rarely checks their talk page, so a response may be a long time in coming.

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia

Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
No edit warring or sock puppetry.
If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 05:04, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New comments on older sections

Hello. For simplicity, I've moved your comment at Talk:American Free Press to a new section. The post you responded to was from 2009, and was likely to be overlooked. If you feel strongly that it belongs in the old section, please feel free to revert. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 04:14, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Khan Shaykhun

Already discussed to death on the talk page, but if you want to restart discussion feel free. Please note the editing restriction on that article: all editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit. VQuakr (talk) 03:44, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions alert

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Doug Weller talk 12:29, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

July 2018

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Southern Poverty Law Center, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 09:48, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While sources like Media Matters for America, and The Daily Caller may both have a political bias, I find no reason why they would not be reliable sources, the fact that a source may be biased does not make it unreliable, see WP:NPOVS.Underneaththesun (talk) 07:05, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Underneaththesun. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

cleanup templates

Hi, I noticed that you added some cleanup templates to Black people and Mormonism. What parts of the page do you believe are unsourced? The article is very long, and the lead summarizes the entire page. Which part of the lead would you remove? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:16, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First of all the lead section should generally be no longer than four paragraphs, see MOS:LEADELEMENTS. I think that all but the first two paragraphs of the lead should be merged into the body of the article. The purpose of the lead is to give the basics of the article in a nutshell and cultivate interest in reading on. As the lead is written now it seems unorganized, the events are out of order and there is no real conclusive statement about about the current status of the relationship between black people and the lds church.

As for the sources, the entire first three paragraphs of the civil rights section is unsourced and there are several sentences throughout the article that are unsourced as well.

While we are on the subject of the sources I think there may be a reliability issue too. Many of the sources in this article are opinion pieces about the church which can be used for information about what people think but are not always reliable for facts, see WP:NEWSORG.

And although I didn't add a template for it, there seems to be a neutrality issue too. The entire article seems to be a condemnation of the church. There is no mention of the early churches opposition to slavery, church leaders support of the civil rights movement, or the churches humanitarian efforts in Africa and throughout the world.

Let me know what you think. Underneaththesun (talk) 08:33, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The lead is longer than four paragraphs to summarize the entire body of the article. The first three paragraphs in the civil rights section are summarizing the rest of the section--maybe an indication that it could be its own page?

Which sources specifically are you talking about? I spent a lot of time in 2017 verifying sources and replacing biased sources with more neutral and academic ones, though the page has changed since then. There is mention that Brigham Young was "initially opposed" to slavery--are there other church leaders you're thinking of that should be mentioned? There's also mention of Brown making a statement supporting civil rights--are there other historical instances of support for civil rights we should include?

There was a section on humanitarian aid, but I moved it to LDS Humanitarian Services because it seemed more relevant to that page. I do think the page is too long though, so I'll propose turning the civil rights section into its own page, with more of a summary on the Black people and Mormonism one. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:24, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the lead can still be condensed further, as it is the lead mentions a lot of details that would be better mentioned only within the body of the article, such as topics that non lds people might not know about such as the temple ceremony, the curse of ham, the pre-existence ect. It would probably be enough to only mention key topics and events such as the early churches attitudes on slavery, the priesthood ban and the current situation and save the in depth details for the body.

Although the first three paragraphs of the civil rights section are meant to summarize the rest of the section they should still probably be sourced or rewritten, the only place that I know of that citations are not required on wikipedia is in the lead section, see WP:WHENNOTCITE.

I am still a little skeptical of some of the sources, many of the books cited appear to be self published and some of the sources appear to be quite old.

It may be worth getting help from an administrator on improving this page as well.Underneaththesun (talk) 08:28, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I moved the civil rights section to its own page. The lead is supposed to summarize the information in the body... I don't see a reason to leave out parts. On reading the lead section of the civil rights section (now Civil rights and Mormonism), I do agree that there were some uncited things that didn't belong--I removed most of them and added a citation needed tag. Which sources, specifically, do you have a problem with? There are a lot of them. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 21:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup templates on Palmer Raids

Hi, there seems to have been some confusion over the style of referencing used at Palmer Raids. You tagged it as duplicated references and incomplete references. The reference style used, however, cites the same source multiple times with a short name but different page numbers, e.g.:

Coben 217–8

Coben, 207–9

Coben, 214–5

and then defines the short names once in the bibliography:

Coben, Stanley, A. Mitchell Palmer: Politician (New York: Columbia University Press, 1963)

This is an entirely acceptible format, documented in WP:CITESHORT, so I've removed the cleanup templates. Cheers, User:GKFX^talk 14:29, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me, I do think the "A. Mitchell Palmer: Politician" book citation is used excessively though. Underneaththesun (talk) 08:04, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

February 2019

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Alex Jones. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block.

(diff, diff, diff, diff) Leviv ich 02:04, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Leviv. Please be aware, regarding the page Alex Jones, I only reverted two different edits one time each, more than a day apart, and explained very clearly the reason for doing so, This cannot possibly be described as "repeatedly" undoing edits, also, the changes that I made were quite small, and I did not believe that they warranted discussion on the talk page.

Thank you,Underneaththesun (talk) 06:44, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

do NOT re-factor someone else's comments!

I will not report this for the time being, but don't do it again! 104.169.29.171 (talk) 11:38, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is permissible to edit another users comment if it dose not change what the person is saying, see WP:RTP and WP:TPG. Also, although you don't appear to have a Wikipedia account, please review WP:GOODFAITH and WP:CIVIL before threatening to "report" other users. Thank you. Underneaththesun (talk) 02:32, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Underneaththesun,

The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with Wikipedia and Wikimedia. The purpose of this survey is to learn how well the Foundation is supporting your work on wiki and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 16:28, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Underneaththesun,

A couple of weeks ago, we invited you to take the Community Insights Survey. It is the Wikimedia Foundation’s annual survey of our global communities. We want to learn how well we support your work on wiki. We are 10% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! Your voice matters to us.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 15:36, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Underneaththesun,

There are only a few weeks left to take the Community Insights Survey! We are 30% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! With this poll, the Wikimedia Foundation gathers feedback on how well we support your work on wiki. It only takes 15-25 minutes to complete, and it has a direct impact on the support we provide.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 20:38, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:26, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:29, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]