User talk:Onondaga

Merge proposal

There is a proposed merge that I think would interest you at Talk:Limited geography model#Several merge proposals - my take. I am posting this notice because I saw that you were a recent editor at one of the pages listed below:

--Descartes1979 (talk) 18:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cumorah

Hi, please do not add original research to the above article. For an explanation of what that means, see Wikipedia:No original research. If we have a source that speaks of the actual geographical location where LDS Church leaders have claimed the Book of Mormon land of or hill Cumorah is located, then we can add a discussion of it to the article using these secondary sources. Merely quoting primary sources that you have located yourself isn't the way it is done on Wikipedia. This article has been plagued with similar problems in the past, and I suggest we avoid repeating those same mistakes. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Page blanking/content deletion warning

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Talk:Archaeology_and_the_Book_of_Mormon, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you.

Getting close to 3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Archaeology and the Book of Mormon. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. This is in reference to the multiple reversions of edits related to the word "amateur" describing amateur LDS researcher Vincent Coon.

3 reverts in the last 2 days - one more and you will have violated 3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Archaeology and the Book of Mormon. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. This is the third time in the last 2 days you have reverted edits regarding Coon. One more revert and you will have violated the three revert rule (3RR). Please discuss your objections on the talk page of the article, or at least give an edit summary when you revert.

Benefit of the doubt

I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you may not have realized you reverted my edits 3 times. I would ask that you review the following wikipedia guidelines: WP:3RR and WP:REVEXP. If you revert my edit again, but with a solid rationale, I will not consider that a violation of 3RR. But if no rationale or explanation is given, like the last 3 reverts, then I will report this to the Admin notice board. --Descartes1979 (talk) 03:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3RR - lets take it down a notch

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Archaeology and the Book of Mormon. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. 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 edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

Just want to emphasize that I am more than willing to include any content that you can reference that meets WP:RS. I am still waiting for your comments at Talk:Archaeology_and_the_Book_of_Mormon#Reliable_Sources_and_Pseudoarchaeology--Descartes1979 (talk) 05:02, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your last edit on Archaeology and the Book of Mormon

Hi there. Would like to discuss your last edit at Archaeology and the Book of Mormon. That was a seriously massive dump of material - and in my view we already have that information represented in a much more concise manner. Maybe you can give me your thoughts on what you are trying to do, and what is missing from the article? It seems to me that all of this talk about the "literary genre" / "literary setting" is adequately captured in this sentence - which is already in the article: "This evidence is viewed by mainstream scholars as a work of fiction that parallels others within the 19th century “Mound-builder” genre that were pervasive at the time."

Why do we need to say any more about anything related to the "literary genre" of the Book of Mormon? This single sentence is more than sufficient.--Descartes1979 (talk) 22:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just reverted your edit again - will you talk about what you are doing here or on the talk page? Trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here, and am open to any edit that makes sense. Please help me understand what you are trying to do.--Descartes1979 (talk) 23:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]