User talk:A person of sorts

Welcome!

Hi A person of sorts! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! :Jay8g [V•T•E] 06:58, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Giorgi Mamardashvili

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Giorgi Mamardashvili, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 22:14, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 2024

Hello, I'm BlueboyLINY. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Bruce Vilanch, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. BlueboyLINY (talk) 00:18, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya! Sorry, I wasn't aware iMDB wasn't reliable. I probably should have known better, but no issues on the fix. Thanks for the update! A person of sorts (talk) 02:46, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ruidoso High School, New Mexico moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Ruidoso High School, New Mexico. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability and those sources should be reliable and independent of the subject. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:37, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No issue! Thanks for the update! A person of sorts (talk) 02:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2024–25 FC Red Bull Salzburg season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page SK Austria Klagenfurt. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 06:22, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ruidoso High School, New Mexico (July 9)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SafariScribe was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
reliable
secondary
strictly independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Ruidoso High School, New Mexico and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 06:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, A person of sorts! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 06:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ruidoso High School, New Mexico (July 10)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by DoubleGrazing was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
reliable
secondary
strictly independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Ruidoso High School, New Mexico and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:20, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion

@A person of sorts Welcome to Wikipedia. I have reverted all of your changes to the 2024 El Paso Locomotive FC season article. You are correct that standardization is preferred, but understand that it is not a rule. Standardization is only preferred when proper formatting is used. You can see on the WikiProject Football template the the formatting used on the page is preferred because it makes Wikipedia articles function better with page readers. Good luck in you editing as you move forward. Feel free to ask questions if you have them. Demt1298 (talk) 00:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't know. Thanks for the update. Won't happen again. A person of sorts (talk) 01:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 18

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2023–24 RKC Waalwijk season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CEST.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:50, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 7

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2024 New Mexico United season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Daniel Gomez.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:52, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox stats as relating to soccer players/footballers

Hello! Thank you for taking the time to contribute to New Mexico United related articles. FYI the info box stats on a player's entry are to include only "club domestic league appearances and goals." Other appearances, such as the US Open Cup, can be tallied in the stats table in the article proper. The infobox stats are to only include league appearances and I think I've noticed that you've made a few edits and combine appearance tallies. Cheers!

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ruidoso High School, New Mexico (September 23)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Tavantius was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
reliable
secondary
strictly independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Ruidoso High School, New Mexico and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Tavantius (talk) 10:40, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:54, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Ruidoso High School, New Mexico

Hello, A person of sorts. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Ruidoso High School, New Mexico, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 11:08, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Maa (2025 film) (April 27)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by S0091 was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of films). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

And remove the WP:CITEKILL. Only one source is generally needed to support a fact. Adding more sources to support the same thing does not help with notability.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Maa (2025 film) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

S0091 (talk) 21:36, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion about Tucumcari High School

Hello A person of sorts, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

While your contributions are appreciated, I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Tucumcari High School, should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tucumcari High School.

Deletion discussions usually run for seven days and are not votes. Our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. The most common issue in these discussions is notability, but it's not the only aspect that may be discussed; read the nomination and any other comments carefully before you contribute to the discussion. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|WormEater13}}. And don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 17:37, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Wiki.gg (June 3)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Sophisticatedevening was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of web content). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Most of these sources are not actually about the site itself.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Wiki.gg and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 03:04, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Wiki.gg (June 7)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Kovcszaln6 was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of web content). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Need significant coverage.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Wiki.gg and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Kovcszaln6 (talk) 14:32, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

oops ...

I always worry I'm going to click the undo button on my watchlist like that, glad you caught it quickly :-) Andrew Gray (talk) 16:50, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate it - I really thought I was reverting that bad-faith edit haha A person of sorts (talk) 16:51, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Serenity Cox (June 11)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SafariScribe was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Serenity Cox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 01:51, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Opeti Helu (June 18)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Fade258 was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Need independent references to the subject that contain significant coverage about him.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Opeti Helu and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Fade258 (talk) 15:54, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Serenity Cox has been accepted

Serenity Cox, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 12:01, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Opeti Helu (July 5)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by CNMall41 was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines for sports persons and athletes). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

The old guidance was WP:NRUGBY but currently we use NSPORTS (basic criteria). Note that significant coverage in reliable sources is still required and unless I am missing it, I do not see that here.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Opeti Helu and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

CNMall41 (talk) 05:42, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 2025

Hello A person of sorts. Regarding the recent revert you made: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template index/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. Lynch 44 21:55, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. Frankly, was not aware of them. Appreciate the notice. A person of sorts (talk) 21:56, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fringe edits

You have added fringe content to Genetics and the Book of Mormon, please join the talk page conversation 107.119.53.130 (talk) 02:33, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy -

First of all please review Wikipedia:ASPERSIONS. My goal here is not to spread 'fringe theories'. My goal is a better Wikipedia. Heck, as you can see right on my talk page, I am an agnostic.

Religion is a very, very complicated matter to cover on a unbiased matter. I reverted your edit as User:Tvfunhouse did. This article does have bias issues, as is shown in the tags, but the issues of it being contrary to science are covered in the following paragraph. We don't need that initial section; the article already has that content. A person of sorts (talk) 02:40, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes we do. This is an encyclopedia, and our policies around what we summarize to create is clear. You may want to consider WP:UNDUE when deciding if science and sermons are on equal footing on Wikipedia. 107.119.53.130 (talk) 03:11, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What I see in this case, is the two parts of the statement. What the Book of Mormon says, and what mainstream science says. Those should be two distinct sections. UNDUE does have relevance here, but there is already a much longer contrast to that statment.

That article is a mess no matter what. Probably warrants a delete, but the WPNPOV mentioned on Tvfunhouse's page is my perspective. A person of sorts (talk) 03:21, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The book of mormon says nothing about genetics. Apologists aren't the equal counterparts of scientists. If you are interested in NPOV, please check out WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:MANDY. We summarize independent reliable sources, not independent reliable sources and random preachers who say God cursed black people. 107.119.53.130 (talk) 07:21, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "we"? You seem to know a lot about Wikipedia policy as an IP editor and have no issue getting increasingly hostile over it, so surely you understand that your edits were reverted by Vandalism patrollers who witnessed a flagrant violation, and not individuals who have written on the article or sourced any of its content? Tvfunhouse (talk) 13:52, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in this case, the IP is right and the vandalism patrollers are wrong. It's okay, it happens, but now may be the time for the vandalism patrollers to step aside and let those who are familiar with the sticky details of WP:GEVAL and WP:PROFRINGE handle the situation. WP:BITE is perhaps worth consideration. jps (talk) 14:15, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a blatantly false characterization. My stance, as I have explained, was simply to maintain neutral language in the lead and preventing an editor (IP or otherwise) from inserting an editorialized, non-attributed claim that violates WP:NPOV. If you feel you need to "handle the situation," then please do. I would love to stop getting notifications to these threads.

The IP's edit introduced loaded phrasing to the lead that did not reflect the balance Wikipedia requires on topics of ANY matter, regardless if the article is already worthy of deletion. Highlighting that does not promote fringe theories or "bite" new users. It seems perfectly in-line with upholding content standards to me.

I also want to note a suggestion left by IP on my Talk page, that I should apologize and revert or risk admin intervention. This was an obvious attempt from the editor to intimidate than to edit collaboratively. Quid pro quo completely undermines the chance of consensus-building and civil discourse. It'd be curious to know if this an actual "new user." Tvfunhouse (talk) 14:31, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't double down on WP:FALSEBALANCE. The IP is correct that we don't mollycoddle religious belief in the service of lies. There is no genetic connection between Bronze Age Israelites and any indigenous people of the Western hemisphere that indicates any concordance with Mormon mythology. jps (talk) 14:58, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So, just to confirm your stance, it is "mollycoddling religious belief" to cut information from an article's lead that is already sufficiently detailed within it? Tvfunhouse (talk) 15:21, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This edit that we are discussing was labeled as vandalism fighting. It was, as can plainly be seen, a removal of the WP:MAINSTREAM understanding of the subject. It certainly looks like you were acting in favor of sanitizing criticism of Mormon apologetics even if that was not your intent. jps (talk) 17:20, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My revert was not in the name of vandalism fighting. If it was, I wouldn't have let an explanation. I viewed it as unconstructive due to the presence of later information on how the stance of the LDS church does not have any good sceintific backing. A person of sorts (talk) 19:11, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I know from experience that attempts to counter vandalism and/ior constructive edits can be quick-paced and fail sometimes to explain our stance well as there is a large feed of edits that need to be reviewed. I was frankly unaware of some of the failures of the articles to show scientific basis. But I still stand by my edit as it seperates a section stating what LDS has to say and the scientific counterpoints. I do not believe anyone here is seeking to serve as Mormon apologetics. A person of sorts (talk) 19:14, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm honestly comfortable with that. This argument has gone too far, especially for an article which is under articles for deletion. I accept the failures of my edit due to the context of the rest of the article not being unbiased and hope this can be resolved quickly. I do not have the knowledge you've got. I admit it, and I won't pretend otherwise. I edited in what I understood to be a good attempt at a constructive edit at the time. A person of sorts (talk) 19:18, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]