User talk:Prsaucer1958

Welcome!

Hello, Prsaucer1958, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Evangelical Renewal Therapy, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted.

You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard. Thank you.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Pgallert (talk) 13:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Evangelical Renewal Therapy

I have nominated Evangelical Renewal Therapy, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evangelical Renewal Therapy. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Pgallert (talk) 13:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have had your say on the discussion. There really isn't any reason to comment after everyone else votes. — Timneu22 · talk 16:56, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Allowing articles on some accepted forms of Christian Counseling (Nouthetic Counseling) to remain while removing other accepted forms of Christian Counseling (ERT) shows a clear an anti-evangelical christian bias on Wikkipedia. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 17:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no cabal, and there is no bias other than WP:Systemic bias. Feel free to nominate Nouthetic Counseling if you feel it violates our policies, and please don't take deletion discussions personal -- it is not against you or any other author, deletion discussions are about (possibly unwanted) content. Cheers, Pgallert (talk) 23:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think that Nouthetic Counseling should remain. It is a highly used therapeutic modality. Altough the Christian Counseling page needs work, I don't want to start a turf war with whomever has dominion over it by changing it again. By the way, can the material from a deleted article still be used according to the cc-by-sa 3.0 license?

If it wasn't deleted for copyright issues, and if it isn't copyrighted by a different party, then yes. --Pgallert (talk) 08:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rev. Saucer -- regardless of the outcome of the the AfD discussion, you should refrain from further edits to Evangelical Renewal Therapy because of your obvious conflict of interest regarding the topic. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As per your instruction, I will not make futher edits. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 13:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I should maybe add that hardly ever can one Wikipedian give instructions to another. WikiDan is right when cautioning you about your conflict of interest, but you are not forbidden to improve the article (who else will do it?), and you are, of course, invited to state your point in the AfD mentioned. Just be doubly careful when stating things that are not backed by independent sources. --Pgallert (talk) 17:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked for the immediate deletion of my article Evangelical Renewal Therapy because I can't recitify the problems liseted. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 10:04, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notable?

What constitutes notability? Why is the press release for a common video game like Home Run King notable? Prsaucer1958 (talk) 10:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The General Notability Guideline reads:

"If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article."

In short, multiple sources, all of them reliable, all of them independent from the subject, have written about the subject of the article. Many articles on WP do not adhere to this standard, you are welcome to nominate all of them for deletion. Better still, instead of nominating them, find the sources and add them to the article. However, an argument that many wikipedians do not like to see is to point to an equally unsourced article and to say "if this is kept, why not XYZ?" See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS

There are specialised notability guidelines on several special topics, all linked from here, e.g for profs, soccer clubs, albums, and the like. Hope this helps, brgds, Pgallert (talk) 11:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 14:27, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Playboy Models

I have noticed that many Playboy models (aka Tracy Vaccaro have articles without references to sources other than Playboy related websites. Does possing for Playboy make a person automatically notable? Prsaucer1958 (talk) 01:52, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a long debate about that, see for instance this recent deletion discussion. Some of them get deleted, some stay. If a Playboy reference really is the only source that can be found then a "delete" is very likely. Before nominating such articles, please make sure you have verified that sources cannot be found, not just that they are not there, see WP:BEFORE. --Pgallert (talk) 08:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I have your talk page on my watchlist, so I will see when you post a question. If you want more people to notice, you can type {{helpme|Your question goes here}}, or you can bring up your question in the appropriate forum, like Wikipedia talk:Deletion discussions. --Pgallert (talk) 08:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. I am too much a newbie to start deletion procedures at this time. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 14:07, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The procedures here are difficult at times, you're right. If you need technical help again, like with the EF article, I can always assist you, and hundreds of others are ready to do the same. However, from my point of view it is sometimes easier not to worry too much about all those starlets, backyard bands, comic characters, and whatever else is of no lasting historic significance. They all have a strong lobby here, it is very hard to get rid of those articles, and time and energy are almost always better spent improving the really important articles. I see you're a Reverend, you might look into the field of church history or religious philosophy. There are many things that need attention. --Pgallert (talk) 15:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributed article, Nephite Law

Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, Nephite Law. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as yourself. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - Nephite#Civil laws. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will to continue helping improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Nephite#Civil laws - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Moocha (talk) 23:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote the article. Please delete it. I didn't know that the material was covered at another page. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 23:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion rationale

Hi. It looks like the deletion rationale is missing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mircea Irimescu. You should provide one. Tizio 12:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A rationale - that the athlete is non-notable - has been added. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 12:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pages Needing Deletion

The following articles may need to be deleted:

Samworth Enterprise Academy Notability was not established. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 20:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can always add {{prod|Your reason for deletion goes here}} to have it deleted without discussion. An administrator will check your rationale and either delete the article or decline your request. If you would like to start a deletion discussion just let me know. You may as well initiate it yourself, just follow the directions at WP:Deletion discussions. --Pgallert (talk) 23:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please start a discussion. Thank you. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 23:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done You can view the discussion here. --Pgallert (talk) 17:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My Edits

I inserted a public domain illustration of Alma the Elder in the article entitled Alma the Elder. Prsaucer1958 (talk)

I inserted a public domain illustration of Moroni in the article entitled Moroni. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 19:15, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Partisan Peer Reviewed Journals

Are all peer reviewed acadamic journals (PRAJ for short) considered acceptable sources for Wikipedia? or only nontable peer review acadmic journals may be cited? How does a wikipedia editor determine if a praj is legetimate? It might be my imagination but it seems that some academics with a bias have started their own peer review journals to advoate their beliefs. For example, the International Journal of Mormon Studies (IJMS) states on its website that it is "is a European based internationally focused, peer-reviewed online and printed scholarly journal, which is committed to the promotion of interdisciplinary scholarship by publishing articles and reviews of current work in the field of Mormon studies." http://ijmsonline.org/index.php/IJMS]" Should IJMS be considered a credidle source? Any imput would greatly appreciated. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 16:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Prsaucer, this is not easy to answer. Generally, PRAJs are reliable sources. This applies to highly valued journals like Science (Journal) or Communications of the ACM, but also to all backyard publications, and to non-peer-reviewed papers as well. You might have realised that the larger newspapers are regarded reliable, and even some of the partisan websites.

The crucial point is not who publishes what, but what kind of fact you want to back up with your sources. To back up something like "Michael Jackson died of an overdose", a newspaper article is sufficient. You don't need the exhumation report for that because it seems logical to most people, anyway. However, if you want to say that "Michael Jackson died after an attack by aliens" a newspaper report is certainly not sufficient, particularly not from The Sun (newspaper) or similar tabloids.

The relevant policy here is WP:FRINGE. Remembering you are a Reverend, please do not take offense by the name of the policy, or by the situation that most religious minority views are indeed regarded fringe theories by many Wikipedians -- it is a case of WP:Systemic bias.

The most important thing to apply is common sense, in combination with the awareness of possible conflicts of interest. Toyota's web site is not a good source to back up a claim like "Toyota builds the best middle-class cars", but it is a very good source to back up a claim like "Toyota recalled 460,000 cars due to a possible defect of the accelerator pedal". I'm sure you know what I mean. To get back to your original question: IJMS might be a good source to back up claims about the church's internal structure, Mormons' beliefs and history. It might be a less valuable source to back up claims about the natural sciences, inconsistencies of other beliefs, or importance of Mormons to history and development. Hope this helps a bit, Pgallert (talk) 09:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of "Assured Way" article

Well, someone else has proposed Church of Christ (Assured Way) for deletion. "No evidence of notability", he asserts. I can't see why, and I told him so on his own talk page and the article's too. But, at any event, "what will be, will be". I appreciate all your input, and your support on it. - Ecjmartin (talk) 02:58, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you or anyone else disagree you are allowed to just remove the {{prod}} template. Of course, giving a reason would be good. What should not be done is blanking talk pages - this one contained comments from other parties; that should not be dismissed (I have reverted the talk page blanking). I hope you are aware that if the author blanks an article page (that is allowed) the page can be speedily deleted. As I read your post like "I don't want it to be deleted", and as an AfD discussion is already underway, I have reverted this page blanking, too. Please notify me if this was not what you wanted. Brgds, --Pgallert (talk) 12:45, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Pgallert. Prsaucer1958 (talk)

If a collective is notable, then each member of it is also notable. Since the List of sects in the Latter Day Saint movement, the Latter Day Saint movement, and History of the Latter Day Saint movement have established the notability of these small churches, it stands to reason then this article as well as the other articles about other LDS movement churches should be created and maintained. This is analogus to articles on tv shows - each notbale show has subarticles on each character. Many, if not most, of these sects or their founhders have articles of their own. Is there going to be a wholesale purge of these articles because a single editior objects to them while several reviewers (Surv1v4l1st, Artist4Echo) say that they past muster. The claim that "the assurred way is just another sect" is immaterial because there is no Wikipedia rule that limits the number of notable subjects of a particular category that can be covered. Prsaucer1958 (talk)

If a collective is notable, then each member of it is also notable -- That's a fallacy:

If Germany is notable, then all her states are.
If all her states are notable then all their constituencies are.
I f all constituencies are notable, then all their members are.

==> all German voters are notable :)

Not sure where this AfD is going, though. --Pgallert (talk) 18:36, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

okay. On an possibily related point. I am not sure, but doesn't wikipedia consider all schools to be notable per se. I have seen that claim when some school is being considered for deletion. If so, why is that not a fallacy: All schools are notable; X is a school; therefore X is notable. I think that is where I drew the conclusion concerning collective notability. If being a school automatically warrants notability wouldn't those churches which are also seminaries (Guidestar reports that there are at least four such church/seminaries recognized by the IRS) warrant inclusion in Wikipedia for being notable? Prsaucer1958 (talk) 20:30, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see you know your syllogisms ;) All high schools are usually kept, primary and middle schools have to show some press coverage. Churches are also usually kept if the building is somewhat historical. I'm afraid that doesn't seem to apply to Church of Christ (Assured Way), that's more like a bungalow. Sects, church fractions, and general lines of thought normally have a tough fight at AfD, that's why I said I'm not sure it will stay. BTW, one academic paper discussing this religious wing will normally seal the discussion towards "keep". Is there any? --Pgallert (talk) 21:31, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep a look out for academic articles. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 00:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So far it seems that there is a consensus to keep the article - 3 to 1. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 20:30, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the Way: From the IRS point of view, it is easier to form a legally recognizable school then it is to form a legally recognized church. In fact, two of the 15+ IRS requirements for a church is that it have a theological school for training ministers as well as a sunday school. If schools are considered notable per se, then churches which are harder to establish than schools should also be considered notable per se. I think that an IRS "Letter of Determination" that states that an organization is a "church" should be considered a reliable third person source for establishing notability since getting such letters are hard to come by. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 20:51, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think that Wikipedia editors believe that they are using Modus Tollens: such as, If Subject A is notable, then it will have independant sources:(N implies Q). There are no independant sources:(not q). Therefore, Subject A is not notable:(not A). However, I believe that statistical syllogams are really being used because no editor has access to all sourcesa: Most notable churches will have independant third party sources. X does not have several third party sources. Threfore, X is an not-notable church. The statement that "it is just another LDS movement church" is evidence for a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid of the accident kind - a form of deductive logical fallacy. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 02:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not quite that way, WP starts from the other side saying "Nothing that is not independently verifiable belongs here". That is the much more important principle, compared to notability. See the five pillars. Now of the things that are independently verifiable, some things are notable, and some things are not.

I know that many editors at AfD do not argue that way, maybe they are not aware of it, maybe they deliberately want to muddy the waters. But I am pretty sure this is how the policies are to be read: First find independent sources, and then decide if it is notable. Not the other way round. --Pgallert (talk) 09:49, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is needed is a good public relations person who can get that church mentioned in independant newspapers, books, tv news, and academic journals. Look what publicity has done for the Westboro Baptist Church :) I am not suggesting that the .Assured Way should become a hate group, but it needs some good press - it needs to make a name for itself. Even if the church's article is dropped for a second time, it can be resubmitted should it become more notable. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 13:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The John Whitmer Historical Association provides a link to the Church of Christ (Assured Way)http://www.jwha.info/links/default.asp This list of links is only to what appears to be notable organizations - not an ad hoc link of all organizations. This inclusion indicates to me that John White Historical Association consideres the assured way to be notable. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 20:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The intervention of John Hamer. a well know scholar on the LDS movement, will likely save this article from being deleted. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 11:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The debate has been concluded. The decision was to keep the article. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 00:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image Upload

I uploaded a scan image of Sister Elizabeth Barton (File:Elizabeth-Barton_(ca_1835).jpg). The etching from which the image was scanned was published in 1835 - this makes it in the Public Domain. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 23:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

message

Hello, Prsaucer1958. You have new messages at Pgallert's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Cedar Lake (California)

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		Thank you very much for rushing to the rescue of this "Not so longer obscure article" Cedar Lake Mlpearc powwow 16:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I want to thank you very much. What a wonderful job. I feel so bad, after yelling "HELP". This was my last edit to Cedar Lake[1]. Four hrs. after that edit I was in the hospital getting prepared for an emergency appendectomy. I was just released from the hospital yesterday afternoon. All went well and I am fine. But I still have praise for you and everyone that participated in the AfD. My wife set up my laptop when I got settled in and my browser opens to the last page it was on when shut down. It was Cedar Lake. After I signed in I had a message waiting for me at my talk page, so I went there first, when I came back to cedar lake the first thing I noticed it wasn't flagged for deletion :). What a wonderful "Editors to the Rescue" collaboration. Again Thank You Very Much. Mlpearc powwow 16:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 18:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of "Zaan Apostolic Church of God"

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

A tag has been placed on "Zaan Apostolic Church of God" requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject of the article is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} at the top of the article, immediately below the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate), and providing your reasons for contesting on the article's talk page, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. You may freely add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

You may want to read the guidelines for specific types of articles: biographies, websites, bands, or companies. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 01:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Youvan's Apologetics

The article author became distressed, blanked the article, and then requested its deletion; but actually, I think Shoessss' suggestion of a redirect was a good one, she has agreed, and per WP:IAR I have implemented it. I have proposed at the AfD that it be closed as "redirect", but I am checking with you in case you would rather maintain your "delete" !vote. Please comment there. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Hello, Prsaucer1958. You have new messages at Ecjmartin's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hey, Patrick: I hope nothing I said in my reply came across as offensive to you, because not one bit of it was intended for you. I get upset at that term "splinter groups," and I sometimes tend to forget that not everyone uses that term in the prejudicial sense that I've often heard it used by some LDS. So if anything I said came across as "personal," or was offensive in any way, I profoundly apologize. - Ecjmartin (talk) 02:27, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

August 2013

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Copyright are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. TJRC (talk) 21:03, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Augustus Le Plongeon

This was my reply to your post on my page regarding Augustus Le Plongeon and the chac-mool footnote in The Book of Jared:

Hello! If Le Plongeon said it, then the source should be within Le Plongeon's writings, not someone who said he said it. There have been many people who have ascribed various theories to Le Plongeon. Le Plongeon in his writings, however, was pretty clear that he believed the Chaacmol to be of Prince Coh. The source you cited, alas, was not Elder Stevens, but someone who added a modern footnote to Stevens' Book of Jared. The footnote reads, "Augustus Le Plongeon believed that the Chac-Mools (Mayan statues) are artistic representation of Kakmula as he dictated the Book of Kakmula." The sentence is gibberish, and I suspect that a line or several words are missing. CoyoteMan31 (talk) 00:39, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]