Talk:Mormon blogosphere

message: :Are there any of these that would be considered part of the Bloggernacle or should otherwise be considered for inclusion in external links? 
:;Cultural Mormon or disaffected
:* Recovery from Mormonism
:* New Order Mormon
:* PostMormon Community
:* Dooce
:Please comment. Thanks. ↜Just me, here, now … 06:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  I moved some external links here from the article's main space   

message: I removed all the blogs listed in this section that were pointing to sections of other articles. If they are not notable enough to have their own articles, how can they be notable for this list? --Kmsiever (talk) 15:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Notable websites

message: Please remember that Wikipedia is not a directory. It is not Wikipedia”s responsibility or mandate to link to every related webpage on the Internet. That is what ODP is for. as per WP:EXT, “If an article has external links, the standard format is to place them in a bulleted list under a primary heading at the end of the article.” Please follow this convention by not linking blog titles to their websites within the body of this article. Links should be to Wikipedia articles only, if they exist. --Kmsiever (talk) 13:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: External links

message: Bloggernacler Ardis Parshall, in a paper, defines the Bloggernacle as "the network of Mormon blogs whose posts are aggregated at the website ldsblogs.org," making note of "other Mormon-themed sites that orbit the Bloggernacle and are often assumed by the press to be part of the same confederation."--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 05:34, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bloggernacle 

message: Some Anonymous user undid my edit on the Niblets. _Please explain your reasoning.  Mormonheretic Feb 19, 2013  —Preceding undated comment added 19:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You mixed-in an unrelated, non-notable award ("The Wheaties" from Wheat and Tares); it is not the same as the Niblets, and didn't belong in that section. Likewise the material you added about Wheat and Tares does nothing to establish that it is wp:Notable, and based on a quick search, I can find no supporting evidence that Wheat and Tares is notable enough to merit a mention in this article. Your low edit count and the edit history on you contribs indicate you may not be all that familiar with WP standards, so you may not have understood how to see the adequate reasoning given in the edit summaries found on by clicking on the View history tab when looking at the article; please consult this in the future when trying to understand other peoples edits. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 20:55, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

text: It's not notable. What more needs explaining? --Ronz (talk) 01:26, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

text: I removed the information because it was not notable. Have you read WP:N? Is there something that's not clear there? If so, what? --Ronz (talk) 03:36, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

text: One blog may be more notable than another because it received (per WP:GNG) "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."  If you feel that Wheat and Tares has received this kind of coverage, please write an article about it and include the references.  Until then, you may want to read Wikipedia:No personal attacks about working with your fellow editors. 72Dino (talk) 04:48, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: wp:Notability (web) also applies in this specific case. Mormonheretic could also attempt to engage with wp:WikiProject Blogging as well as wp:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement if he wants to solicit assistance in writing Wheat and Tares (blog). -- 71.223.127.117 (talk) 05:28, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

text: Moved here from User talk:208.81.184.4 -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 15:25, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

text: I'm not asking for an apology for your deletions of my honest, good faith, truthful efforts to contribute to Wikipedia at Mormon blogosphere (I'll just chalk this up to you being a little overbearing and unintentionally a bully.)  Please stop referring me to another article without answering my honest question.  Refusing to provide a simple explanation is harmful to relationships between two honest people and doesn't help anyone involved with a disagreement on WP. Please keep in mind that I am a person with feelings too, and being gang-tackled for a good faith effort on my part causes hurt feelings on the my end as well.  I hope this provides a more clear explanation why a person may lash out when he feels gang-tackled by Wikipedia editors without a quick, clear, concise explanation (should you do this to someone else in the future.)  Once again, I'll chalk this up to poor communications, rather than any malice on your part.  Mormonheretic (talk) 05:37, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Really?!? After you said "Why should I listen to you anyway" it was pretty clear you didn't want me to answer you, so others stepped in; now you're blaming me for your behavior and the other people responses, and calling me a bully? All anyone here and at your talk page was trying to do was help you. Please don't expect any other communication from me at this time, and stay off of User talk:208.81.184.4, as I'm going to completely wp:DISENGAGE from you. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 15:25, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I guess you should stay off my talk page too.  Mormonheretic (talk) 07:59, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Wheat and Tares & The Wheaties

message: These links have been tagged as of concern since 2012 so are being reviewed per Wikipedia:External_links#Maintenance_and_review. They do not appear to meet the requirements at WP:EL, failing WP:ELNO#1 at least. However, they may be of use to editors wishing to work on the article so they have been moved here. If, after examination, a link is found not to be useful it can be removed from this list. If, however, the link does prove useful, the first approach is to see if appropriate information can be summarised in the article, using the link as a reliable source if it meets the WP:RELIABLE criteria. Be aware that, per WP:ELBURDEN, none of these links should be returned to the article without first gaining consensus that it can only be used as an external link, and meets the requirements at WP:EL. SilkTork (talk) 10:58, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: External links