Talk:Jared Pratt Family Association

This article was nominated for deletion on 7 March 2012. The result of the discussion was merge.

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mormonism and the Latter Day Saint movement on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Latter Day Saint movementWikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movementTemplate:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movementLatter Day Saint movement articles

This article has been redirected, please make any new comments at Talk:Pratt family

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

improper "archiving" edit

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The contents of this article talk page were unilaterally and improperly moved - making the talk page history appear vacant. See [1] to see the actual real talk page hisgory which has been improperly moveed from this page.

Tha actual content of this page is hereby resotored where it belongs:

Malware edit

Refs which give one a big "Malware Warning" from Google are not exactly likely to meet WP:RS. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:47, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Warning - visiting this web site may harm your computer! Suggestions: Return to the previous page and pick another result. Try another search to find what you're looking for. Or you can continue to http://jared.pratt-family.org/ at your own risk. For detailed information about the problems we found, visit Google's Safe Browsing diagnostic page for this site. For more information about how to protect yourself from harmful software online, you can visit StopBadware.org. If you are the owner of this web site, you can request a review of your site using Google's Webmaster Tools. More information about the review process is available in Google's Webmaster Help Center. Advisory provided by Google.

Would seem to imply that the source ought not be used. Collect (talk) 23:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Specifically:

Of the 10 pages we tested on the site over the past 90 days, 4 page(s) resulted in malicious software being downloaded and installed without user consent. The last time Google visited this site was on 2012-03-06, and the last time suspicious content was found on this site was on 2012-02-18. Collect (talk) 23:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC) Really -- when making claims which are NOT in the sources, one risks being noticed.Note that this unfortunately applies to repeated insertions of horridly sourced claims in this "article." Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Huh?A non- conspiracy theorist would avoid filling up a talkpage with screaming headlines about a temporary Web glitch, one would assume: Jared.Pratt-Family.org homepage. (For lovers of bold print out there), bottom line:

Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the requirement in the case of self-published sources that they be published experts in the field, so long as: the material is not unduly self-serving; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source; there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; the article is not based primarily on such sources. This policy also applies to pages on social networking sites such as Twitter, Tumblr, and Facebook.---wp:SELFPUB

--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:29, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Are you asserting thet the JPFA is a person? That would mean, moreover, that only claims about the JPFA itself could be used - and all other material sourced to it is removeable under those rules. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:47, 15 March 2012 (UTC) Above post goes right over my head. Good rhetorical skills sometimes may be used to avoid instead of find the truth, however.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 19:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC) Note - If there'd be no objection, after a couple days I'll archive this discussion, veering precariously close to a page mostly attacking subject entity. Thanks.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 19:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

NoteL The "archiving" violates some core Wikipedia requirements that the history of the talk page remain with the talk page. Cheers. Or you can simply move everything back where it belongs with a "warning" not to add to the "aarchive page." Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:31, 24 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add topic