User talk:Vyselink
This is Vyselink's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4 |
Your revert
I saw your revert here [[1]]. I'm curious to know if it is widely agreed is there additional sources that can be added? I think it would behoove us to at least have a source that helps outside the organization. On a personal note I was also raised as a Jehovah's Witness and while I don't think they would lie about it, I think in the spirit of verifying our writing that we should note it is based on internal reporting if we don't have reliable outside sources. I think the wording could have been better but it might be accurate.
- I neglected to see the beginning of the sentence stating the group reports. That makes much more sense and while outside sourcing would help I think that is nuetral presenting the source and where it came from. talk) 20:10, 4 January 2019 (UTC)]
- @Hell in a Bucket: Here ya go. Put it in where you see fit and reword the section a bit if you'd like. I'll take a look when you're done but I'm sure it'll be fine.
- @
- "Most scholars do not question the Society’s own statistics on membership, which are publicly available, clearly defined, and transparently calculated." Dr. Zoe Knox, Journal of Religious History Vol. 35, No. 2, June 2011 pg 166
- Thank you for that. I went to go and try and word it with the source. The more I looked I also checked the demographics situation and it is sourced very heavily so I think my point was more moot then I realized. I think more to the lead may make it more complicated when we can cover it in more detail and have the sources in a separate section. talk) 00:13, 5 January 2019 (UTC)]
- Thank you for that. I went to go and try and word it with the source. The more I looked I also checked the demographics situation and it is sourced very heavily so I think my point was more moot then I realized. I think more to the lead may make it more complicated when we can cover it in more detail and have the sources in a separate section.
@
William Marshall
I am doing too many things at once or I might have reviewed it a bit more. However, technically I don't see a conflict. Crouch's doubt is about WHICH of the figures was originally meant to be William, and not whether he was buried there. The temple was badly damaged, and then someone tried to guess which one it was. Older descriptions show that it was once easier to identify him.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:37, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
ArbCom 2019 election voter message
Editing other user's Talk
- Vyselink, it wasn't me who changed an other's edit on the Revolutionary War's Talk page, it was user:Harper1234567 with this edit. My edit, which immediately followed can be viewed here which only involved one spelling correction. Somehow I got the alert that my edit was reverted, but again, the only edit on my part following Harper1234567's edit was a spelling correction. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:46, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
- Perhaps I got the alert because user:Harper1234567's page does not exist yet so the system gave the next user in line the alert. (?) Can only wonder. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:55, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
@
It is an incredibly minor thing and one that isn't a big broo-ha-ha (so to speak) but unless it is to remove something inappropriate via the guidelines given above, editing another person's talk page post should never be done. It simply sets bad precedent. Vyselink (talk) 04:56, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Edit: Also, the reason you got the alert is the way I changed it (by reverting to a previous version of the page) erased your edit as well. Anyone who had made any edits would have received the message, it just happened to be only you and the other editor this time. Vyselink (talk) 04:58, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Thanks for looking out. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:52, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Merge proposal
It was just proposed that the Anglo-French War (1778–1783) article be merged with the France in the American Revolutionary War article. Opinions are welcomed. — See Merge Proposal -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:35, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
April 2021
Please do not add or change content, as you did at 20–20–20 club, 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.
See
"only 112 times in MLB history has anyone hit over 20 triples in a season, with only 7 such seasons since 1950."That's the byproduct of it. —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:59, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses
I reverted the post per WP:NOTAFORUM, not necessarily WP:TPNO. I don't think it's a matter of being "unacceptable", but more of a "not what a talk page is for". Cheers, - FlightTime (open channel) 16:58, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the
The
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the
The
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review
Marshal
Hello Vyselink. I didn't really think that you were canvassing when you mentioned the Marshall and the Young King on my talk page ~ i just wanted to be open about it to forestall any such comments. I appreciate the notification, and your opening the discussion. Happy days, ~ LindsayHello 17:15, 14 February 2024 (UTC)