User talk:208.81.184.4/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
     Archive 1   
All Pages:  1 -  ... (up to 100)


Important notes
  • Editors using this IP address are doing so exclusively as private individuals.
  • Edits from this IP address should NOT be construed in any way as representing or otherwise speaking on behalf of Vangent, GDIT, or General Dynamics.

Saving test edits

Welcome, and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test on the page Image:BalancingRock.JPG worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --• EvanS :: talk § email § photos •
00:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The edit in question was adding Category:Garden of the Gods to the image. I mistakenly though I was on a commons page, where that cat exists (see commons:Category:Garden of the Gods). Also note that I subsequently reverted vandalism on that article by 65.18.31.254 (talk · contribs) on this edit. -- 208.81.184.4 17:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I greatly appreciate your vandalism revert, and that vandal is now blocked for a year. I'm sorry if your took my message wrong. • EvanS :: talk § email § photos • 23:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas A. Scully

Hi, what kind of balancing do you think needs to be done on the article? I'd be glad to discuss it with you. Regards,Rich 01:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see comments at Talk:Thomas A. Scully

Neutering cats

If "neutering cats" is not the stable term for removing categories, then it URGENTLY NEEDS TO BE. Thanks. --Kizor 19:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't originate the term, but I'm a sucker for bad puns, so when I saw an edit using the term to describing the act of adding a colon (i.e. 2 small round objects) to a category to neutralize it, I remembered it & started using it. -- 208.81.184.4 21:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User Name?

I noticed you have made a lot of good edits recently, and you appear to be an experienced Wikipedia user - I am curious as to why you don't have a regular user name set up. --Descartes1979 (talk) 02:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for everyone that uses this IP address, but I've been told that I can use WP (including making constructive edits) as long as I don't login. I'm generally WikiGnomish, so not getting 'credit' for my edits isn't really an issue for me; an edit should be judged as valuable based on the edit itself, not the editor. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 02:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I find it a bit amusing that we have made conflicting edits under the same IP. At least none of us has been tagged as a vandal. Does Vangent somehow create a Gnome-friendly environment? 208.81.184.4 (talk) 19:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Others at this IP may choose to register, but per Wikipedia:IPs are human too I feel no need to do so. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 22:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the heads up on the FAQs and such. -- Please feel free to undo the article creation (not that you have to). Again, thanks for the heads up Mr Gnome :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeb.rodgers (talk • contribs) 22:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually someone else already took care of it. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 22:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eli Whitney

Hi, the recent edit you made to Eli Whitney has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. treelo talk 19:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain more clearly why you feel this edit is unconstructive? The dif clearly shows that I am dab'ing the link to Harper's Ferry (which is a redirect) with Harpers Ferry Armory, which is what's being discussed. I also did an (admittedly short) edit summary that adequately describes what I was doing with the edit. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 19:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After reading your talk page, I see that you frequently have made false positive identifications of vandalism, going so far as to state that "you might accidentally delete good faith contributions and warn users for them, because you're using huggle" (to quote another WP User). As you did undo your revert of my edit, I'm assuming you realized your mistake, but am a little disappointed that you did not apologize for it, as you state on your talk page is your normal course of action. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 23:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re Removal of content

Sorry about that, I didn't see the inclusion of the wikisource external link. I'll revert to your good faith edit. Wisdom89 (T / C) 18:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 18:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mesquite High School

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Mesquite High School (Gilbert, Arizona) has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Vishnava talk 15:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain exactly why you feel this edit is unhelpful? The information is not cited, the people on the list are not notable (based on Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Lists_of_people), and is unuseful peacock strutting to include in an encyclopedia article. If you disagree that's fine, but that would be a content dispute, and using a generic vandalism warning to voice an opinion on a content dispute is inappropriate. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 19:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Yes I see it as a content dispute, which is why you should have attempted to discuss or inform other people on the talkpage, where you explain your point based on WP:NN. The school's history of valedictorians and salutorians seems to be a good faith addition, as it has pertinence to the school's history even if it can't be carried forward into an encyclopedia. I see in the article's history that this section has been removed and reinserted several times, so it would definitely help to discuss rather than continue the cycle. A discussion also makes it easier to point out to others that adding such info is not appropriate - it wasn't a clear-cut bad addition like the "notable alumni" section that included just 2 names.
That being said, I apologize - it is obvious that you have the best intentions, and I was wrong. As a vandal fighter, I saw an entire segment of information removed without indication of prior discussion; there have been cases of vandalism where the vandal left a ripping edit summary, removing a bunch of info he/she felt should not be there without taking into account the work and opinions of other editors. Working fast and furiously to fight vandalism, I mistook your good-faith removal for vandalism, and I apologize. However, if you wish to remove the data, please do discuss it on the talkpage first, giving any interested party a bit of time to comment. Best regards, Vishnava talk 19:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And thank you for working and taking care of Wikipedia. I am glad that you sought to discuss this, so we can clear any misunderstandings and help me rectify an error. Vishnava talk 19:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, I suggest that you should create an account and edit through there - it is obvious that you are a good editor and an asset to this project, so come join us formally. Also, it will reduce the chance of people mistaking your edits for possible vandalism, as I see it has occurred before. Vishnava talk 20:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments above. I do have a user account, but am not allowed to use it at the location where this IP address resolves; see #User Name? section above for a few more details. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 20:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

June 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to BDSM has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. 0x6D667061 (talk) 21:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Children of Joseph Smith, Jr.

RE: Children of JSJr. - you are completely right. The citation is self-publishing and has been challenged before. I would suggest you delete it and any reference it was used to support. Best, A Sniper (talk) 20:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Life of Joseph Smith, Jr. from 1827 to 1830

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Life of Joseph Smith, Jr. from 1827 to 1830 has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Ndenison talk 17:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain in more detail why exactly you think that this edit is unconstructive? If you look at this edit of the main Joseph Smith, Jr. article, you will find that User:John Foxe actually added this desc there, to clarify what is depicted in the image. As he is the person that actually uploaded the image, and added it to both articles, it would seem he would know the intent of the image, and it would be reasonable to reuse the wording he used in one place in another location for the same image. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 17:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted that one two. The quotation marks and the from his hat had WP:SOURCE and WP:POV issues. Ndenison talk 18:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If this is the case, you better remove that wording from all the articles where the image exists. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 18:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:

You are welcome to continue editing articles without logging in, but you may wish to create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits. If you edit without a username, your IP address (208.81.184.4) is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on this page. Again, welcome! DougsTech (talk) 00:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the welcome, but please see #User Name? above why using an account from this IP is not an option. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 00:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Almera Woodward Johnson

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Almera Woodward Johnson, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Almera Woodward Johnson was changed by 208.81.184.4 (u) (t) redirecting article to non-existant page on 2008-08-07T22:39:53+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 22:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made a mistake on the redirect, which I have subsequently fixed. This was not WP:VAND, merely a mistake. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk)
Actually after reviewing the edit, there was no mistake; List of the wives of Joseph Smith, Jr. was entered correctly. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 22:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjaya Kumar

I've deleted Sanjaya Kumar, MD for blatant advertising. However, I think his book might be notable with a quick Google search. As a result, AFD might be the way to go. bibliomaniac15 23:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

XLinkBot

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Design Build Bluff has been reverted. Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): rule: '\bblogspot\.com' (link(s): http://www.designbuildbluff.blogspot.com/) . If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, or similar site, then please check the information on the external site thoroughly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creator's copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest).

If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 22:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice.

Unfortunately this automated bot reverted a lot more tidying-up that I had done on Design Build Bluff than just the external link to blogspot.com, which itself was trivial to the cleanup I was doing (see this for the actual revert performed by the bot). The external link specifically was merely copied over from ones already existing at University of Utah College of Architecture and Planning, which simply made more sense at Design Build Bluff. I understand the need to look for spam, but auto-reverting external links just because they come from an IP seems to be counter-production in some cases. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 17:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup templates

Just to let you know that most cleanup templates, like "{{Unreferenced}}", "{{Fact}}" and , "{{Merge}}" etc., are best not "subst"ed . See WP:SUBST for more details. Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 11:20 5 October 2008 (UTC).

McConnell Air Force Base

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to McConnell Air Force Base has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. LeilaniLad (talk) 03:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how this edit, which added a link to Commons:Category:McConnell Air Force Base using the standard {{commonscat}} template, adding Category:Airports in Kansas to the categories, and alphabetizing the categories on the article per standards found at WP:CAT is unhelpful. Your revert with this generic warning template makes no sense without a much clearer explanation of your reasoning. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 03:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies. The software I am using will occasionally fail to recognize that I am looking at a new article after reverting multiple changes in the prior article. It was not my intention to revert your changes and I have restored them. LeilaniLad (talk) 03:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery on Grinnell College

I disagree with cleanup tag you have added and now re-added to the Grinnell College article; it refers to WP:NOT, which does not refer to galleries as an element of articles, but only to stand-alone galleries. Wikipedia:Image use policy#Photo galleries does address the use of galleries as part of articles; specifically, it says "The determination of whether a gallery should be incorporated into an article or created at the Commons should be discussed on the article's talk page." The gallery you have tagged was created over time by several article editors, and there has been no discussion of whether to remove it. I realize that all the images and more are available in the Commons, but that doesn't mean that a subset of them would be out of place in the main article. If you feel that this specific gallery should not be included in the article, I encourage you to explain why in Talk:Grinnell College. Avram (talk) 01:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:Grinnell College/Archive 1#Image gallery for a reply to this comment

Gallery on Michael T. Benson Article

I am just letting you know that I have removed the gallery you added to the Michael T. Benson article. Usually, galleries are frowened upon in Wikipedia articles. I moved the only image in the gallery to the infobox. Crashedata (talk) 15:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I have no qualms with the section being removed from that article, I just wasn't going to just delete the good faith addition of a image by someone else without discussion. If you look at this diff what I did with the image was to move it up from the very bottom of the page (between the external links and the footer templates) and put it in the standard titled section, with gallery formatting. I did also add an additional image from commons, as single image galleries look lame. I also add the {{cleanup-gallery}} tag, which may be the reason why you deleted the section. I just wanted to give anyone that objected some time to do so, but 3+ months is plenty of time for this. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 20:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Well, it is removed now. There was only one image in the gallery when I looked at it. Can't even find the other image you mentioned. Anyway, thanks for replying. I just tend to let people know when I change, edit or remove something they did. CrAsHeDaTatalk 23:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

December 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Mormon Corridor, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. (will reply with more info) tedder (talk) 18:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make any unconstructive edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant warnings.
I'm specifically talking about this edit. It's obviously out of character with the rest of the edits, and I know at least one user at this IP is an experienced editor, so I'm assuming the edit was by someone else. Obviously, this is either POV or vandalism or something along those lines. tedder (talk) 18:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree that it was something like POV or vandalism by someone else at this IP. Thankfully that doesn't happen frequently from here (last previous similar edit was in June 2008). -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 20:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, and 99.9% of your edits are solid. Still, it deserved highlighting. Sorry for reverting ALL of your recent edits to that article, twinkle just grabbed them. It should be right now. tedder (talk) 20:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. The project's content policies require that all articles be written from a neutral point of view, and not introduce bias or give undue weight to viewpoints. Please bear this in mind when making edits such as your recent edit to One Hour Photo. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Message from XENUcomplaints? leave me a message! 12:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Updating links to Temple (LDS Church)

Thanks for updating these links to refer to the CJCLDS specific page. You should probably create a username - it gives you a level of anonymity (people don't know your IP address and therefor your approximate location or the company you work for), and allows you to keep a list of pages (a watchlist) for monitoring changes and helping keep the pages free of vandalism and personal opinions. To create a username click "log in" on the top right of the screen, then pick create a new name or something like that on the page that opens. --Trödel 19:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this personal note. Unfortunately I'm not allowed to login from this location. See #User Name? for a few more details. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 19:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's an interesting company policy - have a good day! --Trödel 21:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edward J. Fraughton

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page Edward J. Fraughton has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. cf38talk 16:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this considered as unconstructive; based on the sources in the article, he is living, and so that is a proper cat. Please explain your reasoning. I cannot leave you this message on your talk page as it is semi-protected, so I'm replying here -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 16:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise Winter Quarters has recently been changed to a disambiguation page, so I am changing link to the most common alternate usage of the the term, which is Winter Quarters, Nebraska, not the terribly named Winter Quarters (North Omaha, Nebraska). -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 16:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

two LDS deletion discussions

Wanted to let you know about Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Desert_Saints_Magazine and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mormon_Artist. I'd love to have your input, whether you agree with me or not. tedder (talk) 18:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in US State articles

As the originator of the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in ... articles for many of the US States, I was wondering if you were planing to complete ones for the rest of the states in Mormon Corridor (sans Utah, naturally — that one would be very complex & involved to do well)? -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 00:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a project I did not intend to do or even halfway complete on my own. If this is the case, it may take me as much as 5 years before I can accomplish creating a page for every state in the US alone to the extent of what I have done with Arkansas, California, Arizona, etc. This is not to mention the countries of the world, or even to keep all of these updated.
In short, I need help from others if this is to be completed. If anyone would like to start or edit a page –Be Bold! and feel free to do so. -- Dmm1169 (talk) 03:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ClueBot

Filed a false positive report at User:ClueBot/FalsePositives as the page being redirected to (List of Brigham Young's wives) actually does exists; also see User_talk:ClueBot_Commons#Mary_Van_Cott; False positive report now found at User:ClueBot/FalsePositives/Reports/2009/May#208.81.184.4

AfD nomination of Christian cult

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Christian cult. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian cult (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 21:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Archibald Gardner

Dear Sir,

Please identify yourself. Whoever deleted Archibald's hand written journal entry, an edited version provided by BYU, please give a specific reason. General statements like 'this blog is not sufficient' or another non-specific conclusion confuses a real man's well lived life. Archibald is my great grandfather, so I know him well. Who ever you are -- you seem not to be a Gardner family member -- in good standing --- If you are, please state your connection to Archibald, Robert, William, or Mary? Best Regards,~~ Milo Gardner 6/9/09—Preceding unsigned comment added by Milogardner (talk • contribs) 11:28, 9 June 2009

I have no obligation to identify myself, nor is there any good reason to do this, so I respectfully decline your request. Likewise descendancy from Archibald is not relevant to the encyclopedic content of his article on Wikipedia, so I refuse to confirm or deny that I have any such a relationship. However I will confirm that I have a great interest in him that is more than academic, and I also have a strong motivation to do what I can to ensure that his article is retained; the actions that I have previously taken are expressly for this purpose and my intent is to continue to support that goal.
(your sense of personal responsibility, or lack thereof, to identify yourself is odd --- an un-Wiki like)
It is a simple, core concept that WP is not a collection of external links. Likewise WP is not a directory of genealogical information. In order to qualify for a WP article, all biographical articles must document a degree of fame, achievement, or notoriety. I believe that Archibald meets this criteria, but the article about him keeps getting overgrown with platitudes and external links that detract from the quality of the article as judged by WP standards. Adding material that does not meet WP standards, such as links to self published resource, especially those that do not meet the criteria for a reliable source here on Wikipedia...
(Wikipedia's criteria are not meant to be depersonalized in the manner in which you have suggested. Your personal agenda is taking another form, a defensive slanted point of view that is censoring Archibald's own words --- that describe his life. Again, you are attempting to censor one or more aspects of Archibald's life -- all reported before he became a LDS leader --- and so forth.
In one sense, you are correct, Wikipedia is not meant to be family history service -- is that comment -- as I added at the end of the blog is bothering you -- say so -- directly --- playing mental games with words and 'unstated' personal agendas is odd and unprofessional)
...should be avoided in order to insure that the legitimacy of the article's continued inclusion here at WP is not challenged. Conversely, meeting (or even exceeding) those standards make it much more difficult for Deletionists to successfully remove this article.
As for the blogspot.com link itself, please be aware that there are Deletionists that specifically query WP for articles that use links to that site, and other similar sites, in order to pinpoint articles that might be successfully deleted. Please find another host for this material that is less likely to be found objectionable, ideally through an academic institution. Putting the current link on the article is like a little child pretending to be a Torero, waving a red cape around in what he thinks is an empty bull pen, that instead is holding several bulls that are just out of his line-of-sight. If the lad is lucky, someone will see that he is unintentionally putting himself in jeopardy, and will pull him out before the bulls even notice him. The commotion that this lad might make while claiming he is causing no harm and so should be left alone strongly resembles the fuss some editors have been making on the Archibald Gardner article over including material that does not properly belong, based on WP standards. In summary, I want the article to be retained and "kept off the radar" of those that might try to have it deleted, and your well-meaning, but ill-advised actions are making that more difficult. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 16:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Best Regards, Milo Gardner --- a great grandson -- that is proud to say so!—Preceding unsigned comment added by Milogardner (talk • contribs) 13:07, 10 June 2009

(where is the risk of deletion? That risk passed two years ago. Raising an unverified deletion strawman to justify deleting an edited well written version of Archie's life seems like double negative. Say what you mean, and mean what you say. Two positives makes Wikipedia readable.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.48.6.212 (talk • contribs) 22:33, 10 June 2009

Watch the WP:AFD for any reasonable length of time and you'll see a large number of biographical articles (some not so dissimilar to the one for Archibald Gardner) deleted. Unlike almost any other kind of article, biographical articles are subject to a fairly large amount of scrutiny. As I said, the lad may be oblivious to the bulls in the pen, but those with a wider perspective can see them. --- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 22:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AmeriHealth

NB Articles on notable subjects can be speedied under G11 if they are promotional, which this one was and still is. – ukexpat (talk) 15:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can & should are two different things. I think that the article can be fixed to illustrate the subjects notability, and so I removed the speedy tag. Also, as I said in the edit summary that removed that tag, a quick google hit count on AmeriHealth results in about 131,000 returns. Since the speedy was reasonably contested, please do a AfD if you feel the article is irredeemable. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 15:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently doing some sandbox work on this page, should have an update some time today. Any recomendations would be greatly appreciated. Removing advert information. Most data added by User:Forged12 is notable, however, is phrased as advert. Orzechol (talk) 10:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I recently looked at this again, but it still need more work. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 00:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Davis v. United States (1990)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Your test on the page Davis v. United States (1990) worked, and has been removed. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing and its related help page for more information. Thank you. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (t·c·r) 17:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please be more clear about why you think this edit is vandalism. Your revert removed the wikification I had been doing, which included adding wikilinks, and putting Template:Infobox SCOTUS case on a US Supreme Court case article. The SCOTUS template belongs on every one of those articles, but since this article is new it was missing. Additionally if you look at WP:VAND it clearly states that good faith edits, especially something as simple as adding wikilinks, is not vandalism. If there is something else here that I don't see, please explain your reasoning, instead of using a generic warning template that in this case is essentially devoid of useful information. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 17:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tabernacles

Several of your disams should go to Aedicula. Johnbod (talk) 15:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this note. I see you have added a description of this usage to Tabernacle (disambiguation). I will keep this in mind, and try to fix examples of this usage as I find them.
Additionally, would you be willing to splitting out Tabernacle#LDS Church into a stand alone article for these 79 structures, with a name like Tabernacle (LDS Church)? At one time in LDS Church history these buildings were somewhat analogous to an archdiocese basilica in the Catholic Church, and many of those which remain are registered historical landmarks. There is quite a lot more that can be written on these structures, but I did not want to add that material to Tabernacle, as that article should really focus primarily on the origional Tabernacle, and should at most only have basic summary information of the other usages of the term, such as was done with church tabernacle. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 15:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry - missed this - it's not an area I know anything about, so no. Johnbod (talk) 00:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pet Loss

Thank you for your edits to this article. I stumbled on it a few days ago after putting my cat to sleep. I was not happy with the "LDS" section as is, and I think that and the other edits help. I'd prefer something more definitive about LDS beliefs about reuniting pets and their owners, but a search on the Internet didn't turn up much that was useful.--Boweneer (talk) 02:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for your recent loss. As with most systems of religious belief, the LDS Church does not have a definitive answer to every question. I know of no reliable information stating that the LDS Church teaches that pets are reunited with former owners in the afterlife. To my knowledge, the LDS Church has never taught or authorized the use of the sealing power with animals, and the only relationships in the afterlife that are taught as being possible are those found within strictly defined human family relationships, via sealings. Even the early discontinued practices under the law of adoption were intended to create human familial bonds. Naturally, individuals may have their own speculations and personal opinions on the matter, but at a minimum, those could not be considered even approaching doctrinal status for the LDS Church unless publicly and repeatedly taught as such by general authorities, without being countermanded by the First Presidency &/or the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the disagreements over evolution within LDS Church leadership is a classic example of this). -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 00:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AmeriHealth

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page AmeriHealth has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Atif.t2 (talk) 22:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain with an actual clear reason (and not just a generic, basically meaningless template) how this edit is inappropriate. As was mentioned in the edit summary, member testimonials are completely unencyclopedic; these 2 paragraphs were added to the AmeriHealth on 7 October 2009 by 173.12.26.148 (talk · contribs) who has no other edits. The material in these paragraphs is pure fluff. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 22:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for the bad revert. I missed the edit summary and thought it was common vandal
blanking. Thank you for your notifying me about it. Atif.t2 (talk) 22:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christian naturism

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page Christian naturism has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you.  Btilm  21:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to the page Christian naturism. Such edits constitute vandalism and are reverted. Please do not continue to make unconstructive edits to pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you.  Btilm  21:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than using virtually meaningless templates, please actually explain in clear wording why you consider adding {{who}} where specifics are needed and performing minor wikiknome formatting fixed on the LDS section in Christian naturism to be vandalism. Also you might want to look at Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 21:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for informing me for my mistake. Since you are an IP address, I thought this was common vandalism (and I didn't know the template existed). I actually thought you were new and were meaning to say something like Someone (who?)...', which still shouldn't be done. I apologize for my mistake.  Btilm  22:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. If you wouldn't mind, please self-revert your last revert on that article, so there is no apprentice of an edit war. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 22:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried to self revert it, but it can't be done because I wasn't the last person to edit the article. Don't worry, though. No one will see this as an edit war as long as they see it is crossed out and read this note.  Btilm  01:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Unfulfilled religious predictions

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Unfulfilled religious predictions. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unfulfilled religious predictions. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Koshare Indian Museum & Koshare Indian Dancers

To reduce the number of cross-thread postings, this conversaion was moved to Talk:Koshare Indian Museum#Koshare Indian Museum & Koshare Indian Dancers -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 17:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC) [reply]

AfD nomination of Nauvoo Brass Band

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Nauvoo Brass Band. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nauvoo Brass Band. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to Latter-day Saint links

Hi, although I really appreciate people who take the time to correct spelling and capitalization mistakes, it's really not necessary to correct the spelling of linked articles on talkpages and in userspace. Please only correct them in article space. Thanks. Katr67 (talk) 00:59, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In looking at the links you provided, Wikipedia:USER#Ownership and editing of pages in the user space indicates that one should avoid non-trivial edits to userspace pages, but I would think the minor fixes to wikilinks as I was doing would be considered trivial, and thereby allowable. Is this not the case, or am I missing something? -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 15:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise, at Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Others' comments it states under Disambiguating or fixing links that links in others comments can be fixed if there is a typographical error, which was what I had been fixing. Is there something else about this that I should know? -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 15:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, basically its considered rude to fix typos in other people's posts. Per WP:TPO: "It is not necessary to bring talk pages to publishing standards, so there is no need to correct typing/spelling errors, grammar, etc. It tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting." And since the typos in the links you are correcting redirect to the correct page, there's not a problem with there being a lack of context, that is to say, the redirected link will get the poster's point across just as well. Finally, frankly it's a waste of time, and doesn't contribute to building an encyclopedia--which is hopefully what we're all here to do--but how you use your time is your business. That's all I have to say, I hope you take it under consideration. Katr67 (talk) 16:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the additional clarification; I found it enlightening. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 16:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comb through U-I sugar?

Hi! I've moved Utah-Idaho Sugar Company into mainspace. If you have time, can you comb through it? I'm sure there are "mormonifications" and "utahifications" that can be performed. (wow, I just verbed a noun that is a nickname of another noun). I also put up the Deseret Manufacturing Company, which is where Sugar House in SLC was named. tedder (talk) 17:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Lakota Electric Outage of 2010

A tag has been placed on Lakota Electric Outage of 2010, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

notability

You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. 86.29.141.167 (talk) 13:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Family2.0

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Family2.0. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Family2.0. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aimee Semple McPherson

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Aimee Semple McPherson has been reverted.
Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. I removed the following link(s): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wQxp2eeYuc&feature=youtu.be (redirect from http://youtu.be/8wQxp2eeYuc). If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. a sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy and therefore probably should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 20:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice.

I did not add the external link, merely moved it down out of the article body into the external links section. Apparently this bot could not differentiate the difference. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 20:05, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Archimedes, Inc.

FYI - As someone who has worked on the page, it might interest you know that Archimedes, Inc. has been nominated for deletion. At: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Archimedes,_Inc. Danieldis47 (talk) 20:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to clean that article up, but still am not convinced of its merits. As comments from IPs are normal discounted on AFDs, and I'm not really interested in this topic enough to try fighting that semi-standard WP prejudice in this case, I'm leaving that AFD alone. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 19:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Medicare fraud

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Medicare fraud, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. The reverted edit can be found here. Thank you. I dream of horses @ 18:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain in clear, non-generic-template wording how these edits (which apply proper wiki formatting including for numbered items in a list, remove superfluous external links inline with the text when a wikilink to the topic is provided, remove unneeded extra line-returns in middle of inline refs, consolidate duplicate refs, and remove an external link that does not meet wp:EL) merit a VAND1 warning? -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 18:46, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, it doesn't. My bad. You were right to undo my rollback. --I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 02:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robert S. Wood

Hello! I am trying to correct/amend the Robert S. Wood page where you left two notes about phrases that needed clarification. The first was a quote calling The Global War Games "the largest gaming series in U.S. history." That was part of a larger description of Wood's responsibilities all linked to a reference, but to clarify I added an additional link to that reference right after the statement. Is that enough? (The description was a direct quote.) The second was to the phrase, "all U.S. Armed Forces Senior Service Schools," where you ask if that is the same as military service academies. The answer is no: the academies are undergraduate (West Point, Annapolis, etc), whereas "senior" is the term used (in the reference but also in general) for post-graduate military schools, like the Army, Navy, Air Force colleges of "command and general staff" and "war colleges." Unfortunately there is not one wiki phrase to incorporate them all like there is for the undergraduate schools -- although I guess I could try to create a page for "U.S. Military Senior Service Schools. For now, though, would it be enough to add the same reference to this phrase again or to explain in parenthesis what I just explained here? It is a description readily understood by most people familiar with military education, which is why it was used that way in the speaker's bio from which I "lifted" those words -- but I understand if you are saying that it should be readily understandable even by people unfamiliar with the military. Is that what you are saying? I would like to get this right, so with this additional info I've added here, perhaps you could either tell me what good phrasing might be, or feel free to add it yourself? In any event, I thank you for helping to make this a better article!! NearTheZoo (talk) 20:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, again! I think I "answered the mail" in terms of your question about Senior Service Schools - by linking to a page that listed and described the schools that fall under that category. However, I can't figure out the "peacock" banner, since I think every fact and quote in the article is referenced to an independent source that I found by googling Wood's name. Could you please let me know what facts you think are not referenced enough to warrant this banner -- or perhaps take it down? (I see you think a date for the War Games would help, but I don't think a missing date would warrant the peacock banner -- do you?). Anyway, I'm trying to deal with the specific questions you raised! Thanks! NearTheZoo (talk) 00:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:PEACOCK issue was a systematic, article wide problem, which unfortunately happens frequently on biographies of LDS General Authorities. While this individual has done some truly remarkable things, the article had some unneeded puffery & hagiographic elements that needed to be corrected. Additionally the external links added to explain the U.S. Military Senior Service Schools and the Global War game series works really well. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 18:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! And thanks for doing the fixes that allowed you to take down the banner in good conscience. I've done more research and added some additional dates in the areas you (rightly) thought should be more specific. Good to work as a team! NearTheZoo (talk) 21:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Christianity

In regard to your edit, I was instructed to do so by a WikiProject Christianity Lead Coordinator who wished to consolidate all sub-project banners under the WPChristianity banner (link available upon req.). Oaks is important to the LDS Movement, a Christian movement, which is why it gets that banner. If you believe I was incorrect, I welcome discussion. Regards, Spalds (talk) 23:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Substituting the Template:LDSproject/Template:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement with Template:WikiProject Christianity is not a useful enterprise for articles that are specifically about Latter Day Saint movement topics, and should not be done. It is no more useful than trying to consolidate all Religious articles to only use Template:WikiProject Religion; it adds little value and makes the mass amount of articles unmanagable. Where it makes sense to use the Christianity template is on topics that touch multiple denominations, such as Sacrament (see this diff to see how I've been refining & fixing those where segments of Christendom have been missing). -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 23:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See this (and other sections further down) which provides the reasoning. Please discontinue reverting those edits until we can discuss it further. Regards, Spalds (talk) 00:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In looking at that archived talk material, this is not the hard & fast rule that you seem to be making it out to be -- it is merely the preference of only one (albeit well respected) editor. WikiProject Latter Day Saints movement is not subordinate to WikiProject Christianity and Template:LDSproject is valuable and well used. If that template is to be discontinued, this needs to be discussed with the project itself on the Project talkpage, and not on an individual user talk page; likewise a consensus needs to be reached on that Project talkpage with the project members, including unofficial members like myself.
Part of the issues with Template:WikiProject Christianity relates to how it doesn't always transclude properly the projects that it lists as taskforces (listed as "tf#" in the template code); I suspect this has to with the workaround being used on Template:WikiProject Christianity to address the limitation on Template:WPBannerMeta for only supporting 5 taskforces.
A better fix for this whole situation might be be to modify Template:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement to include an option to list WikiProject Christanity within that template. The only other project/taskforce on that template is the LDS taskforce, so there shouldn't be any transclusion problem. Including WikiProject Christianity on the template adequately addresses User:John Carter's desire for a separate priority rating for the Christianity project and also fixes the issue with the transclusion of WikiProject Latter Day Saints movement in some places. Naturally Template:WikiProject Christianity should still be used for articles where there would be multiple projects/taskforces indicated by that template, such as on Sacrament. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 17:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I have to point out that just about all of your own opinions are, basically, in contradiction to the opinions of not only myself, but of the editors of the Christianity Project and its related projects. Your own edits are, I believe, a fairly clear violation of WP:CONSENSUS, and could be considered to be problematic. The common banner was agreed upon because, basically, several articles contain material which is directly relevant to more than one group, but it would be problematic to have the individual banners of each and every relevant project on those talk pages. This banner construction also follows the existing prior standard of the TEMPLATE:WPMILHIST, which is set up along similar lines. While it has been considered elsewhere to have one single religion banner for all religions, that would be using that banner to such an extent that any edits to it would seriously bog down the server. If you feel that your opinions on this matter deserve discussion, I suggest that you start a thread, probably at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity, to put forward your opinions and allow for determination of consensus. However, I do believe your own recent edits have been, basically, counterproductive, and would request that you cease them pending resolution of such discussion. John Carter (talk) 17:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's best to use the WikiProject Christianity template on articles that would properly fit under multiple Christianity related projects, and I have never said otherwise; what I do not see is why Template:Latter Day Saint movement should not be used on articles that fit exclusively within that domain, and as that template is part of wp:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement, it is that project that should say if it should be no longer used in that case. Is it your position that WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement is subordinate to the Christianity Project, and so WikiProject Latter Day Saints movement cannot use their own template? That seems to be what is being implied when you state that this matter should be decided by the Christianity Project, but that doesn't seem to make any sense, so it seems I'm missing something. Could you point me to where this these discussions (where a consensus was found that even articles that fit only one domain should only use the Christianity Project template instead of their specific projects template) are found in the projects talk pages, so I can review what has already been said about the subject? -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 17:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even given all the back and forth on this subject, I think alot of the articles you have removed should still be in the WikiProject Christianity. It is a common complaint that LDS articles are bias to the LDS church. Listing them in the WikiProject Christianity give it a chance to be looked over by non LDS member. For example the Quorum of the Twelve. This groups dose and did a lot of work outside the LDS church with other "Christianity". They also interact on behalf of the church with groups both religious and non-religious. Why is it that they then only go into the LDS workgroup?
I also don't see why it matters where the notability comes from. These are workgroups not articles. If placing them in the WikiProject Christianity can improve the article, why should it not be included? Not including them also hints at a belief that LDS church isn't Christian, which is against the reached WP:CONSENSUS reached at Christianity
Lastly, I’m with user: John Carter. This is against the common banner that was agreed upon because, therefore against the WP:CONSENSUS.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 21:27, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement should have a voice on how their project specific templates are used, so I added a conversation at that project talk page at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement#Template:LDSproject. I linked back to this discussion, so they can see what was already stated. I did edit down my position to the most salient points and used what I feel is clearer wording to get across my meaning, but I do not repudiate what I have said here.
If the consensus at that project talk page it to completely replace Template:LDSproject with Template:WikiProject Christianity, then I'd recommend a wp:TFD. If the conclusion of that TFD is deletion, then hopefully a bot could do all of the substitutions, as by my count there are currently about 2500 usages of Template:LDSproject. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 15:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BTW -- every article tagged with Template:LDSproject is included in WikiProject Christianity by default; see User talk:Spalds/Archive 1#LDS & Christianity for John Carter's explanation of this, which is better that anything I could type. The whole issue stems from Template:LDSproject not providing an importance rating for WikiProject Christianity, so John Carter advocated replacing all of the Template:LDSproject to Spalds, and Spalds worked to that exact end. In no way do I think LDS articles belong in some kind of an exclusive LDS getto, separate from the rest of the Christianity articles; far from it, by using Template:LDSproject I'm actually including those articles in WikiProject Christianity, but sub-categorizing them appropriately so tools/functions that rely on Template:LDSproject being on the talk page (like the Wikiproject Watchlist as an example) will work properly in relation to the WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 18:57, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trolling IP editor you asked me about

I reported the [IP user] to WP:AIV. One admin gave them a final Final warning and then another editor decided to block them for 2 weeks both diffs here. We'll see if it does any good. Heiro 18:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lyman Wight

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Lyman Wight has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Я£ΙИӺΘЯСΣĐᴙᶕᵻᴎᵮᴓᴚᴐᶒᵯɘᴎᴛᶊTalk 17:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain in clear, non-generic template language why you feel this is an unconstructive series of edits that you need to revert; all of these edits are valid, with edit summaries attached. Also please note wp:don't template the regulars & wp:IPs are human too. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 17:44, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article Tahash Timeline

Please look at the article Tahash, and on the Discussion Page: "Consensus on Timeline" give your opinion about the Timeline. Thank you. --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 13:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

church historian

I have reverted your edit re: the capitalization of the word church. You're indeed right that if LDS Church was a stand-alone noun the word Church would be capitalized. But in this sentence, the noun is the church historian, who is LDS - it is like saying the Wonder Bread master baker or the Jehovah's Witness chief architect. Perhaps you want to grab an admin to sort it out. Best, A Sniper (talk) 20:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're right of course; sorry I missed that. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 21:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page

Could you comment on my comment at Talk:Priest (Latter Day Saints). Seems unclear to me. Cheers. Moriori (talk) 02:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PFS

Nice additions to Peggy Fletcher Stack! Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I was really surprised that she didn't have an article until very recently, and was looking for some way to help with it. I'm not really great at generating big blocks of text, but fine detail tasks like adding those publications is right up my alley. BTW, good catch on her byline changes over time. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 00:40, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, it was pretty difficult to find sources about her, so in the past others might have been hesitant about creating an article because of that. There's tons of stuff out there that she's written, of course, and her exact name gets 34,000 google hits, but finding anyone writing about her as a person was a little bit difficult. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for contributions

I would like to thank the person who has contributed to such articles as Jose L. Alonso from this ip address. I would also invite those who do so to create specific wikipedia accounts, it helps to better contribute in the long run.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kmg90

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Black Hawk War (Utah) with this edit, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Kmg90 (talk) 16:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain in clear non-templated language how these valid content related changes are unhelpful -- your message is of little to no value. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 16:27, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or significantly change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did with this edit to Black Hawk War (Utah). Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Kmg90 (talk) 16:27, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your second revert is meaningless, and you used the wrong template even if it had been valid. If you actually take the time to look at the diff, you'll see that no material was added, merely a paragraph was moved, and that paragraph has a citation! What's your game here, going to a Vand2 when the Vand1 was bogus, and the Vand2 is misapplied? Also wp:Don't template the regulars & wp:IPs are human too.-- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 16:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so now you did this revert on Mormonism and Islam: that material is valid and referenced, and you dismissed it out of hand. Are you trying to do a wp:Recent changes patrol by targeting most/all contribs by IP addresses? If so that is not a valid way to do this; perhaps you should brush up on the current state of the wp:Vandalism related guidelines. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 17:48, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work

Nice work on some AZ school articles of late. Yes, the Westwood article is a stub, but it's a needed start. With 2929 students, it was AZ's largest high school not on WP in some form or another. Can you help expand it? Raymie (t • c) 21:13, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well we can start off with the easiest thing first (the notable alumni) & see where it goes from there. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 21:16, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

unblock-auto

This user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.
208.81.184.4 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
208.81.184.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "YoMamaBlowsMe". The reason given for YoMamaBlowsMe's block is: {{usernameblock}}

Accept reason: Good editors on the IP affected by this block. -- DQ (t) (e) 00:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Message to everyone

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:

You are welcome to continue editing without logging in, but many editors recommend that you create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits such as the ability to create articles. For a full outline and explanation of the benefits that come with creating an account, please see this page. If you edit without a username, your IP address (208.81.184.4) is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on this page. Again, welcome!

Welcome

Hello, 208.81.184.4! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! FaktneviM (talk) 18:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines
The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

Manhattan New York Temple

Thanks. I've uploaded a version of the photo with a more accurate name. :-) Nightscream (talk) 20:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:4.28.11MormonTempleLinconSquareByLuigiNovi.jpg works just fine as a name instead of File:4.28.11MormonChurchLinconSquareByLuigiNovi.jpg. Thanks for changing it. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 20:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank for the clean up

That was all I came to say, originally, was "thanks for the clean up," but upon seeing your talk page that's been superceded by "You champion." You appear to be doing a great job taking the unfortunately-normal IP abuse in stride. Oh, and welcome to wikipedia! *insert sound of self-amusement*
Aaron Brenneman (talk) 23:16, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination forms

Hi! About Phoenix Indian School and other NRHP schools in AZ:

The nomination forms are great sources of information on the history of NRHP buildings. In some states, NPS Focus, the system that catalogs NRHPs, NHLs etc., has these nomination forms. They are not available this way in AZ and for some other states. You can email the NPS and get these nom forms sent to you. See WP:NRHPHELP. I've reverted the addition of the RS tag there for this reason. Raymie (t • c) 03:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are they not available online? -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 14:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not in AZ. I have several that I requested in my email records — all of them AZ schools. I wrote most of my NRHP schools articles with these as a source. Raymie (t • c) 23:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LeConte Stewart

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to LeConte Stewart, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. The reverted edit can be found here. Thank you. Waterfox ~talk~ 18:45, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain in clear, specific, non-templated wording why you consider the edit not constructive. What I was doing was adequately described in the edit summary. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 18:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, bad revert. Warning striked out. — Waterfox ~talk~ 18:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for repeatedly tripping abuse filters in rapid succession in articles on high schools. If you are running an automated tool for these edits, please cease and desist. If you have a registered Wikipedia username, you may log in and continue to edit. Otherwise, once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:52, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

208.81.184.4 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

There is no bot being used from this IP address. Instead I am a human user that uses multi-tab browsing in Firefox to quickly open pages where I've been doing simple wikignome tasks; in this case it involved a simple copy/paste of missing WikiProject tags on talk pages specific to Arizona Schools/Districts. I did the repeated attempts to edit Talk:Lake Havasu High School while I was confused about why the filter was stopping me from doing tasks that I had been allowed to do earlier. I also reported the problem with the filter at Wikipedia:Edit_filter/False_positives/Reports#208.81.184.4 before I was blocked. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 21:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

I've unblocked. But I really strongly recommend setting up a named account to do this stuff with; a lot of the abuse filters you've been triggering don't get triggered by registered users. --jpgordon::==( o ) 06:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, you're editing one page while opening your next target on another tab, right? --jpgordon::==( o ) 22:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes in some cases, or I'll already have several tabs already open that I know I need to do the same/similar simple wikignome task, then switch to the next tab in turn as soon as I hit submit on the previous tab. It seems silly to waste time by waiting for network/PC latency and do everything completely linearly. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 22:34, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For example in this case I had noticed that Raymie (talk · contribs) had in the last few months created a lot of Arizona School stubs, but almost all of them were missing {{WikiProject Arizona}}, {{WikiProject Schools}}, &/or {{reqphoto|in=Arizona}} on the talk page, so I just went down his edit history, opened into separate tabs somewhere around a dozen articles at a time that he created (looking for the N), switched to the talk page, and copy/pasted the missing templates onto the talk page. The filter came into play on the few articles that had the auto-class bot message that it instructs people to remove if they agree with the stub class it gave (see edit filter report I did), which in all of these cases I did agree with the class it gave. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 22:48, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I generally do many small wikignome edits broadly across many pages (see X!'s Edit Counter on toolserver.org), both there on en:wp & at commons (mostly categorization & minor description fixes there). I also focus on articles that show in Tim1357's Wikiproject Watchlist at toolserver.org for wikiprojects I have an interest in. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 23:03, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I testify that this is a real guy who can be real helpful at minor tasks related to my editing of Arizona schools. His Wikignoming complements my extensive work on Arizona high schools. I've created some 250, maybe 300 almost 200 Arizona school articles (the Soxred tool is not working, so I can't give you a firm number). He's been very, very helpful. Raymie (t • c) 03:44, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Citation Barnstar
Thank you for your extensive citation work in Homosexuality and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I remember looking at that article a while ago and groaning when I looked at the references. -- Adjwilley (talk) 22:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 23:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks to you from me too! ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 22:22, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well I think it finally cleaned-up properly -- hopefully this will lead to additional improvements to the article text. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 00:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work! I've been impressed with the amount of work you've put into that. -- Adjwilley (talk) 17:43, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete an article?

Is it possible to undelete an article? I stumbled across Avraham Gileadi through a broken redirect, and looking through the history, it seemed to be a decent article until User:יום יפה hacked all the substance out of the article and then spearheaded the deletion process. Upon further investigation I began to suspect foul play when I noticed that User:יום יפה was just one of like a thousand socks run by User:אֶפְרָתָה, a user who has been blocked, but continues to make socks for the purpose of "hacking material out of articles about progressive Jewish organizations and then PRODding them" (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/אֶפְרָתָה/Archive). Also, the other user who voted for deletion was also later confirmed a sock. -- Adjwilley (talk) 17:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that article did not merit deletion, and if you succeed in getting it undeleted, you'll find in the edit history that I tried to fix that article on more than one occasion from this IP address. The undeletion process is described at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion Wikipedia:Deletion review; unfortunately that's all I know about it as I've never gone thru it myself. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 17:46, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I've requested the undeletion. -- Adjwilley (talk) 18:00, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lds

From Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement‎‎#Template:Lds

The LDS scripture template (Template:Lds) does not seem to be working properly in all instances anymore. It seems to work in some instances (e.g. Alma 39:5; Leviticus 18:22; Doctrine and Covenants 131:1–4; Doctrine and Covenants 121:45–46), but not in others (e.g. 2 Nephi 13:9 for http://lds.org/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/13.9?lang=eng#8 or Lua error: Book <jst-gen> not found in Standard Works. for http://lds.org/scriptures/jst/jst-gen/19?lang=eng). It seemes related to the change in the URl used by the LDS Church (i.e. from http://scriptures.lds.org http://scriptures.lds.org/john/3/5#5/john/3/5#5 to http://lds.org/scriptures/nt/john/3.5?lang=eng#4 for this same example verse). This is beyond my ability to troubleshoot/fix, so I was hoping someone might take a look at it to see what can be done. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 17:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...

I believe I've fixed this with a test on the book and adding in the scripture type (standard work: ot,nt,bofm,dc-testament,pgp). Please let me know if any examples that don't work. The prior version (of the scriptures on lds.org i.e. http://scriptures.lds.org) allowed you to bookmark to a specific footnote - the new one (http://lds.org/scriptures/) does not - so I've not tested that. The template parameters need to be deprecated to indicate that linking to a footnote is no longer supported. --Trödel 02:57, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A brownie for you!

Thanks for your helpful additions to articles mentioned in my post. John Foxe (talk) 18:27, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I thought it would be helpful to give your students some examples of the minor polishing work that still could be done on those articles that they'd already put so much effort into. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 17:56, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mormonism is not under Christianity catergory

"Mormonism" has never been listed under "Christianity" category, I therefore removed "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Hong Kong" from the "Christianity in Hong Kong" category. STSC (talk) 06:11, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mormonism is part of Category:Nontrinitarian denominations which is a subset of Category:Christian denominations and is frequently listed in the Christianity categories. --Trödel 17:22, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Teancum

Welcome and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test on the page Talk:Teancum worked, and it has been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox instead. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 19:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
Please explain in clear, non-generic template language, how doing a couple of housekeeping chores & responding to 2 comments on a talk page is vandalism. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk)
That was a mistake. Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia! PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 19:05, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for responding so quickly. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 19:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Warren Jeffs

Thanks for your recent high quality changes to Warren Jeffs. --Mirokado (talk) 18:42, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, and thanks for noticing. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 18:56, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV Warning

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in California appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this important core policy. Thank you.

To say that Los Angeles, San Diego, and San Francisco's founding was significantly influenced by Mormons is essentially a POV violation. Each city was founded by Franciscan friars decades before the Mormon church even existed! Sure, San Francisco had the Brooklyn Saints; but they only stayed there for a couple of years Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 23:26, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The wording states "significant role in establishing and settling communities"; as I indicated in my edit summary, significant role doesn't mean first, primary, or exclusive. Also please wp:Don't template the regulars, especially for a minor content dispute; a welcome message to this IP at this point is decidedly unfriendly, verging on hostile. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 23:30, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, an IP is by definition not a regular...if you don't like it, take it to ANI, where I'll just point out you were POV pushing Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 23:46, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why would I want to take it to ANI? Being unfriendly on WP is not a crime; it's actually a very common experience for those of us editing from IPs to be on the receiving end of this kind of thing, especially when people forget that wp:IPs are human too. However it doesn't mean we can't or should call this out when it happens, because being unfriendly is not helpful to the goal of creating of a collaborative encyclopedia, especially with the drop in numbers of regular editors. Looking at your talk page, you're a reasonable person. Let's just talk this out at Talk:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in California. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 00:02, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, let's do that. I left reasons why it should still be removed in respone to yours. If we're still at an impasse, we'll get a 3rd opinion Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 00:08, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

non-free Image

Do you have any experience with the licensing of images? I'm having trouble with this one. The problem is that the statue is copyrighted, but at the same time, I can't find a free substitute for it. I've tried to start a non-free-image review, but I'm afraid I'm just messing stuff up at the moment. Any help or advice would be appreciated. -- Adjwilley (talk) 17:47, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm not sure what to do with both that image & several other related ones. The statue is by Torleif S. Knaphus, who died in 1965. As far as I know, it is still copyrighted until 2035, and since there is no right of panorama in public spaces in the US, the only way I know to make sure we have permission to use these images would be to get a release from Knaphus's heirs. The Knaphus family organization does have a website at knaphusfamily.org and they list a contact email at knaphusfamily.org/store/KFO%20Store.html so perhaps that would be an option. User:ARTEST4ECHO actually has more experience with asking for permission on this sort of thing than I do, so you may want to talk to him, or other members of the Latter Day Saint Movement WikiProject first, before asking for permission. I'd hate to see that image go, so good luck! -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 18:08, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It would certainly be sad to see that one go. I've been trying for months to find a free alternative. The closest I came was this painting of it, done by Cloy Kent. She died 5 or 6 years ago, and I tracked down her daughter who informed me that they had donated the painting (and copyright) to the LDS Church. I then called the church IP department and they said no, unsurprisingly.
As far as I know, this particular statue is a reproduction of the original Knaphus, so I think its copyright would be held by the church too. Thanks for the advice. I'll keep looking. -- Adjwilley (talk) 18:49, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The larger version of the handcart statue was a commission by the LDS Church to recreate the 1926 version, originally commission by the Daughters of the Utah Handcart Pioneers. Both were sculpted by Knaphus (he finished the clay for the larger casting in 1942). A commission however doesn't automatically transfer copyright (since it is not the same as work-for-hire) even when the copyright holder no longer owns the original. Since the Knaphus family currently sells copies of the 1926 original (and the LDS Church or it's designates do not), it is reasonable to assume that Knaphus did not sign over copyright to it; the larger piece is clearly derivative of the original, so there is no reasonable expectation that the LDS Church would have a say in the copyright status of either. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 20:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, I didn't know that. I have sent an email to the address on the Knaphus website, and hopefully they will respond. Optimally they well say, "sure, we'd love to have this featured on Wikipedia" and send a much better photograph of the original. Worst case, they don't respond and I try to get a friend with art experience to draw me a picture of it :-) -- Adjwilley (talk) 23:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I got in contact with one of Knaphus's grandsons, who was representing the Knaphus Family Organization, and he was happy to grant permission on the photo, and provided two additional photos (1, 2) as well. When I get an extra minute I'll update the Commons pages with proper links to the KFO website. I also contacted the LDS Church Intellectual Property division about the statue, but they were extremely unhelpful. They wouldn't give me a straight answer about the copyright status, so I'm going to go with what the Knaphus family says and call it good. Thank you for your help in this. – Adjwilley (talk) 17:55, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
w00t! -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 18:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Place names of Spanish origin

Your inclusion of various mountain ranges and of Casa Grande, Arizona in this category is highly questionable. Category:Place names of English origin in the United States says that the places have to be named after places in England, so in the Spanish case this rule should also applied. Casa Grande, Arizona was named by Anglo railway executives after a Pueblo that was abandoned 100 years or more before a Spaniard ever saw it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:01, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Place names of Spanish origin in the United States was not (and still is not) as clearly defined as you seem to think it is; please see the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 December 7#Category:Place names of Spanish origin in the United States for a great deal of discussion on this point, where a final decision is still pending. I took the term "Spanish" in this category name as the Spanish language, not Spain nor the Spanish Empire. All of the names I added to the category are of Spanish language origin: who gave these places their names is an entirely different matter. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 14:53, 19 December 2011‎ (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas


--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Presiding Patriarch

I was wondering if I could have your input at Talk:Presiding Patriarch. I am confused as to the status of "Asahel Smith" and you seem very Knowledgeable in this area, so you may be able to clear up my confusion.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 20:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to betray the confidence you seemed to place in my knowledge on this topic, but I don't know of any easy answers for that issue; however the questions you pose would seem to be an excellent starting point for an research paper. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 00:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FLDS

Adding www.sltrib.com/Blogs/polygblog to the external links was a big improvement -- the article really needs more reliable sources. Good work! --Guy Macon (talk) 22:16, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 00:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Criticism of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, you may be blocked from editing. It's in the citation. I notice that you've had problems with this page before. Please refrain from removing cited content. Mythpage88 (talk) 18:02, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
208.81.184.4's edits are far from being disruptive, and I agree with his removal of uncited material at Criticism. The LDS Church doesn't release statistics on the race of its members, and I would be very interested to see a source behind that estimate of 5,000–10,000 black members. Templating the regulars and flagging their constructive edits as vandalism, however, is bad form. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:37, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's in the citation... Mythpage88 (talk) 19:00, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Which citation, exactly? -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 19:49, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The citation accompanying the sentence! Mythpage88 (talk) 19:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(EC)The one from the Chicago tribune at the end of the sentence you removed information from here. While I don't consider what you did vandalism, you probably should have read over the citation before removing the info. I checked and it is in the article. Heiro 19:59, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, lets look at that newspaper article; it says:

Scholars say the number of black Mormons, miniscule before 1978, is estimated at 5,000 to 10,000 today.

There are several problems with this statement: it doesn't credit the true source of that number, instead providing only an appeal to an unknown expert; it doesn't give us any indication about how that demographic material was collected; and this article is ~7 years old, so it is significantly dated with a high likelihood of being different today, even though the way it is mentioned in the article would make it seem to be a current number. Additionally there is little actual relevance for any number in context of that article. While it would be relevant in Black people and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the cited numbers in that article are actually much higher; E.g.:

Adherents.com quoting Deseret News 1999-2000 Church Almanac. Deseret News: Salt Lake City, UT (1998); pg. 119. "A rough estimate would place the number of Church members with African roots at year-end 1997 at half a million, with about 100,000 each in Africa and the Caribbean, and another 300,000 in Brazil."

The Chicago Tribune number is dated, unverifiable, conflicts with more reliable sources, and in any case is out of place in context of the paragraph it was recently added to. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk)

A barnstar for you!

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For patiently replying in a very neutral manner to what is an ongoing issue. Great work, as always. tedder (talk) 17:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 22:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

George Romney reference changes

I just reverted the changes to the format of references on George W. Romney made by someone at this IP address. The article is currently under review at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/George W. Romney/archive2 and the references have been checked there, so further changes to their format should be discussed on the article's talk page or the Featured article review first. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:44, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

<sarcasm>
Internal dialog: Wow, how could I have been so stupid to try to help with minor wiki-gnome tasks on an article where there is an active effort by multiple users to polish to FA status. Apparently I missed the signup sheet to be one of the privileged who can help. I know that my latest edit summaries included exactly what I was doing and why, but naturally the worshipful brotherhood of FA reviewers could not accept that from a no-account IP address leper. At least I didn't get struck down for trying to steady the ark. I'll just watch in reverence from afar as it undergoes it's mysterious and miraculously divine beatification into a FA.
</sarcasm>
Ok, I'm done venting. Sorry, I'm not normally such a jerk. I just get tired of knee-jerk reverts on seemingly uncontroversial minor wiki-gnoming. I really can't see why you consider what I did controversial enough that it needed to be talked out on the talk page or on the FA page, but whatever, I added it to the FA talk page. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 20:00, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, my apologies if I offended you, perhaps I was a bit quick to revert there. Thanks for weighing in on the FAC page, I'll defer to Wasted Time R for further details. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:11, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I normally wouldn't have reverted, I'm usually pretty laid back about small changes like that. But since it's at FAC, where source reviews are pretty nit-picky, so I wanted to make sure no small errors were introduced. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the apology. We'll see what other editors do with the comments I made, but I'm done with that article for now. Have a good weekend. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 20:44, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't know what the "+ missing space" edits were about, since the diff output isn't any help. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:38, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Replied in detail to this at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/George W. Romney/archive2 -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 18:47, 30 January 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I've now responded there. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:23, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Walker Lewis

Nothing may ever be cited to Wikipedia. If the existing reference isn't correct or adequate, find another one, but Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source. Yworo (talk) 18:07, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even look at the dif on my latest update to Walker Lewis? How exactly is this a citation to WP?
"Official Declaration—2", [[Doctrine and Covenants]], LDS Church, September 30, 1978, ...a revelation had been received by President Spencer W. Kimball extending priesthood and temple blessings to all worthy male members of the Church. {{citation}}: URL–wikilink conflict (help)
...and how can you reasonably say this is a good citation?
Tanner, Eldon (September 30, 1978). "Official Declaration 2". Discourses and Covenants. General conference (Latter Day Saints). Retrieved 2010-07-09. ...a revelation had been received by President Spencer W. Kimball extending priesthood and temple blessings to all worthy male members of the Church. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
You aren't making any sense to me; could you please elaborate? -- 208.81.184.4 (talk)

Template:New Religious Movements, Cults, and Sects

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Semitransgenic (talk • contribs)

Please pardon the intrusion. This "anon" is one of the best wikignomes I know, and there's no need to template the regulars. Besides, two reverts with clear edit summaries and an explanation on the talk page (to which nobody responded) is not edit warring. In the future, please take an extra minute to glance over a user's talk page and edit history before hitting them with a template, and remember that IPs are people too. ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:48, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ind, and context on the claimed 3RR would be nice. tedder (talk) 03:31, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The IP made three reverts after the initial edit, only on the final reversion was a talk page entry offered. Note also that the reason offered for the edit is false. 3RR is applicable to all users, irrespective of their regular status.-- Semitransgenic talk. 11:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the IP editor made only two reverts, and the talk page post came before the first revert. (initial edit at 15:20, talk page post at 18:53, 1st revert at 19:02, add to talk page post at 19:04, Seperate edit (not a revert) at 19:30, 2nd revert at 00:20). The IP was also correct in the edit summary when saying that Mormonism does not equal LDS Church. There are many churches that fall in the category of Mormonism; the LDS Church is the largest of those. I have no opinion as to whether the edit was wrong or right, my only concern is your sloppy use of the 3RR template on a good and experienced editor. ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:04, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm not sure that I care one way or another, but the 3RR is clearly incorrect. And what happened to WP:DTTR? tedder (talk) 15:22, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semitransgenic: this is not as clear cut as you seem to think - were I to revert one more time yesterday (or another time today) you would be correct that I was close to a wp:3RR, i.e. "more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period". As it is now, you still would been correct in warning me that I was approaching a 3RR, which is how I will interpret your warning, and will not involve myself with further reverts to this page this week; I came uncomfortably close to edit-waring on this page & I should take a break and wait for discussion on the talk page. To be clear on the edit history, which seems to unclear to some, I'm providing the following:

  1. First (non-revert) edit: 15:20, 5 March 2012‎ 208.81.184.4 (talk)‎ . . (5,004 bytes) (-53)‎ . . (not a NRM!) dif — Removed The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints from Template:New Religious Movements, Cults, and Sects; explanation given in edit summary, though a bit cryptic to people not familiar to the term "NRM"
  2. First revert by Europe22: 17:51, 5 March 2012‎ Europe22 (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (5,057 bytes) (+53)‎ . . (Reverted edits by 208.81.184.4 (talk) to last version by Malik Shabazz) dif — No adequate explanation given in edit summary, just a out-of-hand revert to an IP user; impolite but not uncommon
  3. First revert by this IP address: 19:02, 5 March 2012‎ 208.81.184.4 (talk)‎ . . (5,004 bytes) (-53)‎ . . (Undid revision 480354518 by Europe22 (talk) -- not found at the extensive List of new religious movements so shouldn't be here on this abbr list either) dif
  4. Second (non-revert) edit: 19:30, 5 March 2012‎ 208.81.184.4 (talk)‎ . . (4,981 bytes) (-23)‎ . . (rm Joseph Smith as there is no mention of NRM, etc on article for this subject, and this template also doesn't appear on that page) dif — Reasonable explanation given in edit summary
  5. Second revert by Europe22: 20:48, 5 March 2012‎ Europe22 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (5,034 bytes) (+53)‎ . . (Undid revision 480365746 by 208.81.184.4 (talk) see Mormonism on the page you cite dif — Europe22 was correct at the time that Mormonism appeared on List of new religious movements at that time but The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not, and the LDS Church is what is linked to in the template, not Mormonism
  6. Second revert by this IP address: 00:20, 6 March 2012‎ 208.81.184.4 (talk)‎ . . (4,981 bytes) (-53)‎ . . (Undid revision 480384693 by Europe22 (talk) - Mormonism != LDS Church -- please see talk page on this template for more info) dif — Reasonable explainiation given, as Mormonism is not the same as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (hence separate articles)
  7. First revert by Semitransgenic: 01:43, 6 March 2012‎ Semitransgenic (talk | contribs)‎ . . (5,057 bytes) (+76)‎ . . (undo anon. List of new religious movements contains said items.) dif — Semitransgenic is correct that Joseph Smith & Mormonism appear on List of new religious movements; however I'm also correct that at the time The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints doesn't appear on List of new religious movements and that there is no mention of NRM, etc. on Joseph Smith

Additionally, to add to this chronology, an entry by this IP to Template talk:New Religious Movements, Cults, and Sects was added 18:53, 5 March 2012‎ dif which was further refined 11 min later dif

By my count I didn't even hit 3 reverts, much less exceed it, and I opened a dialog on the talk page. Given this, your template threatening that this IP could/will be blocked seems excessive, and needlessly hostile. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 15:55, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

my apologies, but i saw an IP making a questionable edit and responded accordingly, WP:DTTR is an opinion piece, not a policy. It would serve the community better if the individual using this multi-user IP address adopted a user name; or at least disclose the name of their primary account if they have one. -- Semitransgenic talk. 18:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
see User talk:208.81.184.4#User Name? - this has been explained before. --Trödel 18:31, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also like to point out wp:IPs are human too; knee-jerk hostility for IP editors is counter-productive to the long-term health and success of the WP project. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 18:39, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
wp:IPs are human too is another opinion piece, it is not a policy. Semitransgenic talk. 20:03, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So what? It still contains valid and useful information. See wp:Wikilawyering points 2 & 3, as well as wp:The difference between policies, guidelines and essays points 3, 4, & 7. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 20:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
exactly, so what? essays are opinions, and we all have them. I do not share the view expressed here concerning IP editors operating from a multi user account. Semitransgenic talk. 23:03, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are many essays, that while opinion, accurately describe behavior and provide useful suggestions for the smoother working of the encyclopedia. That you treated an IP differently without taking any care is a problem whether you recognize it or not. --Trödel 15:40, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you do not wish to use this as an opportunity to examine other Wikipedians' thoughts on this topic, then c'est la vie. The opportunity was offered and you were pointed to some of the salient resources. I agree that we disagree about IP editing, and it doesn't seem that we really have anything else to say to each other at this time. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 23:45, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Minor barnstar
For the many thousands of small edits you make that help keep the project running smoothly. Thank you for all your hard work and quality contributions. ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:39, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome templates

Something which should not be here (not destroyed for historical reference.)

{{Template:welcome-anon}} Ankit MaityTalkContribs 06:13, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

{{Template:welcome-anon-vandalism-fighter}} Ankit MaityTalkContribs 06:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. tedder (talk) 15:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The irony here is palpable. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:25, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This IP is a long term stable editor, why is everyone feeling the need to pile on them lately? If you had taken the time to read their talkpage you'd see they have been asked before if they want to register an account name and they prefer not to. Until we change the rules to disallow IP editing, we should respect their wishes and drop this subject with them. This user is more constructive and productive than half the named accounts I've ran across here, treat them with a little respect. Heiro 23:02, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken the liberty of collapsing the two welcome templates added by User:Ankit Maity. I feel a little weird cleaning up somebody else's talk page, and I'm sure it's not Kosher, but if it were my talk page I'd want it done. Revert or delete at will. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, for all the problem I caused. I have collapsed them.--Ankit MaityTalkContribs 07:13, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possible malware on reference

Please be careful with links. Some contain malware. A report of a possible malware link has been made at ANI here [1].--Amadscientist (talk) 20:33, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you are talking about; malware at LDS.org? Please see the section I created at Talk:Mormonism and violence just moments before you posted this notice, as I was trying to open a dialog on your recent revert, since it made no sense to me at all. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 20:45, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diligence
Keep up the work! --ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 19:45, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Restricted editing from this IP address

Due to a change in company internet usage policy, people using this IP address can no longer be involved with editing anything on Wikipedia wherein such edit may in any manner be considered an expression of "personal opinions on political, social, inflammatory or volatile subjects". This is being interpreted very broadly, and as such, this essentially precludes editors from this IP from participating on Wikipedia above the most basic wp:WikiGnome level (e.g. typos, misspellings, minor formatting fixes). Sorry for this unexpected change, and thank you to everyone behind the named accounts with whom editor(s) from this IP have worked with. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 19:38, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very sorry to hear that and hope you will be able to return at some point. You will definitely be missed. 72Dino (talk) 20:07, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Archived per your request - just curious - is this related to the purchase of Vangent Inc. by General Dynamics? --Trödel 21:56, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is exactly the case. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 21:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. I've enjoyed interacting with you folks through the years.--John Foxe (talk) 16:06, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sort keys beginning with *

Someone from this IP address has edited articles to include sort keys beginning with * (asterisk). The result can be seen at Category:American cattlemen, where several articles are sorted before the alphabetical part of the list. I don't see why this has been done. Can you please explain? Thanks. – Wdchk (talk) 23:53, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In Category:American cattlemen this was intended to separate out other topics from the named people. This is not all that uncommon, though if you find this objectionable, please feel free to revert; I have no intent or desire to be controversial in any way. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 00:13, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response. I now understand your intention better. Given that the category's description states that it is to include organizations and associations, as well as men and women, personally I would find it easier to locate articles if they were all sorted alphabetically. However, I don't feel strongly enough about it to make such a call unilaterally. Upon reflection, maybe there is another issue with this category: some of the listed articles are neither men, nor women, nor organizations, nor associations. – Wdchk (talk) 00:40, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Polygamy: What Love Is This?

I'm not sure if you have retired or not, so I will let you know of the nomination for delation of Polygamy: What Love Is This?. You wp:PROD it about a year ago, and someone removed it and made some token changes. After a year of no real improvements, I have listed it for deletion here. You may want to chime in.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 14:49, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I could, but AfD's are forbidden territory for me for now (see the companies restrictions above). -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 19:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Undos

This initial comment has been copied here from User talk:Baseball Bugs#Reverts of 208.81.184.4 so this series of comments is easier to follow. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 15:56, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you out-of-hand revert this & this from 208.81.184.4 without providing any reason all? The supposed supporting ref on the temple garment article describing about current LDS Church policy using a youth magazine article from 1977 is about as timely as using a reference from that same year to describe how the Commodore PET is the latest, most current state of the art in home computing. Additionally, there is absolutely no relevance between the RfC about the Southern Poverty Law & the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints: see this for another example where this notification spam was removed. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 00:15, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The first one was because you removed something sourced, based on nothing but your opinion. If you have an issue with a sourced item, take it up on the article's talk page. The second one was because you deleted someone else's comments on an article talk page, which you must not do. You can respond to them, but don't delete them. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:20, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't just "my opinion", it's the current policy, and has been for since 1990-1991, shortly sometime after the LDS Church opened a new Beehive Clothing facility for making more garments in order to meet the additional demand they created by disallowing hand-made temple garment (see Wells, Elayne (Feb. 3, 1990), "'Our labors take on an eternal aspect'", LDS Church News {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) for more on the factory). At that time they also significantly dropped the prices for purchasing garments, so as not to cause a hardship, as usually it was just the poorer Saints that were making their own. The current price of garments is essentially subsidized by the Church, as it is sold at-cost, or realistically really slightly below cost, given they don't factor in costs that a business would. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 00:53, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As for the offtopic wp:canvassing, I removed from Talk:Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, which was trying to get people to look at Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center#RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles?, it is perfectly acceptable to refactor such a notice when it is mass posted to talk pages (see the contribs from MrX (talk · contribs)) on 22 Sep that have a edit summary of "RfC Notification" for a better view of all of the talk pages this identical notice was posted on), provided the notice is off-topic or tangential to the actual subject the article talk page is there to discuss. This is clearly the case with this talk page, as it also was with Talk:Ezra Taft Benson where user:Jgstokes removed this identical notice. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 15:54, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

October 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Manti Utah Temple has been reverted.
Your edit here to Manti Utah Temple was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (http://web.archive.org/web/20060427010323/http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/4909/manti.html, http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/4909/manti.html, http://web.archive.org/web/20060427010323/http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/4909/manti.html) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 20:22, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice.

Obvious mistake by this bot, and have reverted. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 20:50, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LDS material

Please note that in this edit I moved your material, with refs to the new article. Please extend it there. There will probably be a lot more material there, as denominational views get expanded. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 21:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok great, thanks for the heads up. When I added that to Kingdom of God (Christianity) I was responding to what you said in your initial revert on that page, and hadn't realized that you'd created Kingdom of God (Christian denominational variations) after that revert. When I did find the newer Kingdom of God (Christian denominational variations) I thought I should just stop and wait to see where things were going before I tried anything else. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 22:01, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Obviously, this is a topic where many denominations have diverse views, and in time that material will grow. In any case, now you have LDS refs, so that part is in good shape. The Eastern Orthodox etc. needs help. History2007 (talk) 22:12, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep up the good work!

The Editor's Barnstar
I'm always seeing you doing good things when I do RC Patrol, keep up the good work! Ever thought of creating an account? Or perhaps you have one, but you're not allowed to log into it (which is the case at the hospital I work at, though they say I'm not allowed to go on Wikipedia at all from there anymore). PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 20:55, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! For me it's both - I have an account, but am not comfortable using it at work, where sysadmins here could very easily tie that semi-anonymous account to me personally. However for most of my WikiGnoming activities, I really don't feel a need to use that account, either at work or home; I really only us it when I'm creating an article, or posting pictures in Commons, and its been quite a while since I've done either of those things.-- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 21:05, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Priesthoods

Hi, I'm not sure if you noticed, but the paragraph you added in this edit was slightly redundant with the 2nd paragraph in that section. Do you think it would be possible to merge the 4th paragraph into the 2nd paragraph, thereby avoiding the redundancy? It would also be nice to get stuff into somewhat of a chronological order. (I had placed the priesthood before the BoM/revelations because the Aaronic priesthood came during translation, if I recall correctly.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How does the new edit look? -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 20:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Much better, thank you! ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:54, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bill McKeever/Mormonism Research Ministry citations

I've reverted a number of edits you made because you didn't feel that Bill McKeever/Mormonism Research Ministry was a "respectable source" for certain material. I feel like the citations are perfectly respectable because they faithfully reproduce original documents. Just because they're hosted on a site that thinks that Mormonism is wrong doesn't strike me as a very good reason for removing the citations--should we remove all links to lds.org because it's pro-Mormonism? Hope that makes sense. If there's some policy for not citing to any website with a strong position on a subject (even when the citation is to a portion of the site quoting an original source) I'm happy to be corrected, but it seemed very counter-productive to prevent readers from seeing the original sources when they are relevant and available. Regarding the Journal of Discourses citations, I wouldn't be opposed to citing to the BYU library versions instead of the MRM ones, but I'm not going to go through and do it all myself and I don't see any reason that the MRM ones aren't appropriate.

Also, I considered reverting your edits that removed links to journalofdiscourses.com but decided not to since you said it's an "unreliable" source. I have no idea about that, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but what are you basing that judgment on? Because if it is reliable, it seems like a nicely formatted resource that I'd like to link to. biggins (talk) 03:45, 18 January 2013 (UTC) (And lest anyone accuse me of bias against Mormonism, I am an active, believing Mormon--not that it should matter, really, but figure it couldn't hurt to throw that out there.)[reply]

journalofdiscourses.com does not list who owns &/or is running the site, how to contact them to address mistakes, where they got their material, or what their methodology is for ensuring correct transcription/representation. Additionally all material found at journalofdiscourses.com is available at much more reliable and credible academic sources, so it is less than useful at WP. Likewise I was not removing all MRM links; if you look at the edit history I actually updated and corrected citations in multiple articles related to that organization, where citations stayed in place because they where appropriate. Also I dispute that MRM is "faithfully reproduce original documents"; they are well known for their sloppy pseudo-scholarly approach, and are far less concerned with accuracy than, say, the Tanners; their involvement with historical documents are strictly mostly limiting to simplistic "gotcha" blog-style transcriptions and poor quality images, which are both less then credible as a source for those documents, especially since they do not document their own sources for these documents. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 15:20, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also I could care less if a source is affiliated with the LDS Church, or seen as friendly to it, and I am not interested in limiting critical materials. My issue in this case is that historical documents which are hosted, transcribed, and described using good methodologies by real scholars and related organizations are what we should primarily use in these instances; conversely if source material is hosted by overly-polemic organizations who have little accountability and no incentive to use best-practices for presenting that original material, that citation is suspect (at best). -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 15:54, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with 208 on this one. MRM should almost never be used as a source on Wikipedia, unless they are being used as a source about themselves and the material falls within the guidelines of WP:SELFSOURCE. As for some of the documents they host, I would recommend finding more reliable sources for those documents, or better, find a secondary source that directly supports the claims being made in the article about what the primary document says. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:09, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I proposed citing to a pdf version of the letter hosted at EugeneEngland.org on the article's talk page. I guess that would be the best place to continue the discussion. Thanks! biggins (talk) 22:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Peoples Ticket, Salt Lake City, circa 1876, Mormons, front of.jpg

Well thanks for the additional information to my donation of the "Peoples Ticket". I certainly appreciate that, whoever you are mystery person.

Sincerely,

JTN Jnarrin (talk) 05:44, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; glad that you found the information useful. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 16:41, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Covenant (biblical)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edit to Covenant (biblical) constitutes vandalism and has been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Donner60 (talk) 21:46, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, how exactly is it vandalism:
Your revert of that change pointed the main template in that section back to the wrong article, and mistakenly removed all of the summary material from that section. How do you justify your revert, as there was no vandalism, and in fact you removed material that existed on that article for months until the single edit by a new user mistakenly removed it? -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 22:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did not know or follow the full sequence so I made a mistaken judgment based on a small part of it. I am sorry for the mistake. Please accept my apology. Since it appears this may be a bit complicated, I do not want to make a further mistake on it. Please make the proper change so it is done right. Again, I am sorry for the mistake and that you have needed to go through the explanation. I have deleted the warning above. Donner60 (talk) 22:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for withdrawing the claim of vandalism. A better way to withdraw a warning is to strike thru it, so the rest of the conversation makes sense; I've restored the warning, demonstrating how to do a strike thru, so you can see how it is done. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 22:23, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, based on your recent edit history, please remember that wp:IPs are human too, and people editing from IPs do make valuable contributions to WP. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 22:26, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 22:29, 6 May 2013 (UTC) I might add: Everyone makes an occasional mistake and I will gladly admit mine and try to correct them. They seem to be a very, very small percentage of my edits. If you look at the edits and reversions that I have made objectively (not just that they were made to IP edits), I think you could agree that all or almost all of them are vandalism; maybe a very few, if any, are even borderline. You will also find that if I see a borderline edit, I correct or add a reference rather than reverting the edit - that is, when the edit appears to be accurate and in good faith, not straight vandalism. I will also give more detail on talk pages if I see some obvious flaw that could be corrected. I have been around long enough to know that IP users make valuable contributions and even revert vandalism from time to time. I also know, based on experience and wikipedia studies, that most vandalism is done by IPs. Donner60 (talk) 22:38, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note, and yes, we all make mistakes, including me. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 18:36, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for Peter Whitmer log home

Hello there. I am fully aware of how categories work on Wikipedia and categorizing the home that the Whitmers lived in with the family is more than appropriate. There is no restriction on the Whitmer family category limiting it only to articles on people. See WP:CAT if you haven't already. "The central goal of the category system is to provide navigational links to all Wikipedia pages in a hierarchy of categories which readers, knowing essential—defining—characteristics of a topic, can browse and quickly find sets of pages on topics that are defined by those characteristics." Seeing as the notability of the house is directly related to its connections with the Whitmers and the foundation of the Latter Day Saint movement, having it categorized with the family makes sense since people looking for articles on the family would likely find their most notable place of lodging significant. --JonRidinger (talk) 22:54, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For people, the more correct guidance is wp:Categorization of people, and the very first section reads like this: "Keep people categories separate. While some categories validly contain both people articles (biographies) and other types of article, categories with a title indicating that the contents are people should normally only contain biographical articles and lists of people, and perhaps a non-biographical main article, though this can also be added in a text note at the top of the category. This is for clarity and ease of use, and to preserve the integrity of trees of people articles."
The name of the category (Category:Whitmer family) clearly defines that its scope is people: the most fundamental definition of a family does not include non-human things, or places, such as a house. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 23:03, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, BTW, I am a big fan of your LDS related images over on Commons; thank you especially for the images of Kirtland. I have ancestors that lived in Kirtland, but I've never made it out to your stomping-grounds there in Ohio. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 23:08, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I live less than an hour from Kirtland and am there multiple times a week for rehearsals at the Kirtland Stake Center, pretty much every summer.
Thanks for your reply too! In looking at the Categorization of people, while I understand what you're trying to say, I think what it means is if the category were "Whitmer family members" or something with the word "people" (like the "People from xxxx" categories). Because it has "family", yes, I can go with the basic definition of a family, but the house is still very relevant to the Whitmer family even being a thing as opposed to a person. Perhaps there is a better way to categorize them, but the house definitely needs to be categorized with the Whitmers, whether it be a parent or subcategory or something like that if not in the Whitmer family category itself (perhaps putting the family members in a subcategory). I think in this case with the category being pretty small and not likely to grow much (if at all), it's not a bad thing if all the Whitmer family-related stuff is together. I can't think of any other place that would be categorized with the family besides that house. --JonRidinger (talk) 23:39, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment

A discussion has been opened - where subsequent discussion should take place - at:

Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Is_MoStudies_Review_a_publisher_of_review_articles.3F.

(Neutral statement: At issue is the description of a scholarly journal, turning on allowable summary or interpretations from statements within what may or may not be held as reliable sources.)

--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:28, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Perfection (Latter Day Saints)

You have a reply at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Perfection (Latter Day Saints), when you have a moment I am no longer watching this page—whisperback if you'd like a response czar · · 18:49, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion and expertise would be greatly appreciated

You had been "pinged" recently to provide some input regarding a discussion involving Mormon Studies Review and so are now being appropriately canvassed (per wp:CANVASSING) to participate in the deletion discussion for the Review's brand-new "step-sibling" journal, Interpreter -- here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture. Thanks for your consideration of this request.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:10, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hartford Connecticut Temple

Thanks for moving the Hartford Temple and updating the template. I didn't have time to do it myself. Thanks again. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 00:15, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, glad to help. Also, on a side note it looks like we also have an updated picture of the Phoenix Arizona Temple as of Sunday. On commons there is now a category of several different shots, and I'm not sure that the one that got added to the template for that temple is the best one to use. When you have time, could you take a look? -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 15:53, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Smith - FAC

You may be interested to know that I have put the article on Joseph Smith up as a nominee for Featured Article Status! I think the article has come a long way, and has a very good chance of being featured this time around. I would personally appreciate it if you took a moment to review the article and vote for it (or against it, I suppose) at it's FAC.

Thanks! --Trevdna (talk) 19:52, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, if you're interested, I'm trying to better up the citations in this article, and I could definitely use some help. Right now I'm trying to get rid of instances where there are 2 and 3 cites per sentence...basically just combining them and weeding out the duplicates. There are tons of little changes and fixes that need to be made (see the FAC linked above), so feel free to do whatever...only if you're interested of course. ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:09, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Flowers

Dear Sir, I have been editing this page for multiple years. I am keenly aware that the view of a previous generation of members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints regarding African Americans does in no way reflect the view of Mr. Flowers directly. The secondary source you cite presents that as a view of Mr. Flowers' religion which could be liberally considered libel. Moreover, the current source is a primary source not from the perspective of a third party and DOES meet all of the criteria of a primary source as acceptable under wikipedia.--Joemeservy (talk) 21:57, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Refrain from adding that article.

REALLY?!?!? You're ordering me to not edit an article? Who do you think you are? You don't wp:OWN that article. You don't even know how to properly add a new section to a talk page - they go at the bottom of the talk page! Also you have no idea if I'm a Sir, so don't make assumptions like that, unless you intentionally want to look like an idiot. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 22:38, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, how are you "keenly aware" of Flowers views? Are you claiming to be him, or a family member, or perhaps a close friend or business associate? Are you his agent, or in any other way editing Wikipedia on his behalf or at his instruction? -- 208.81.184.4 (talk)
I am a friend of Mr. Flowers and a former assistant to his manager, Robert Reynolds of Reynolds & Associates. Robert regularly contacts me regarding the editing of Mr. Flowers' wikipedia page ever since I entered law school and left full time employment.--Joemeservy (talk) 01:11, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why have you never before stated this wp:conflict of interest? Are you unaware of WP guidelines (such as wp:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide) regarding this complex subject? -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 16:47, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not currently employed by them. I have previously worked for them but am an agent unto my own self. Also, I am an American. Brandon Flowers is a professional pop/rock musician who presents art for fans.--Joemeservy (talk) 18:26, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Employment is not the only form of COI -- you have a very close association with Flowers and the people working for him, which makes you subject to the COI guidelines. Also your description of your nationality, and Flowers musical audience have nothing to do with what we are discussing, so why bring it up? -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 18:31, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind; at this point I don't care and I'm completely wp:DISENGAGEing with you. Based on the conversation here and at your talk page (permalink), I really want no more contact with you, and ask that you reciprocate. I leave you to do whatever you wish with the Brandon Flowers article without any interference from me; however I cannot say what other Wikipedia editors will do, and I bare no responsibility for their conduct. Please keep in mind that I didn't originate the addition of the Slate article you object to into that article; I'm only one of several editors that reverted you in your wp:Edit War, and I am not even the most recent person to do so. Also, because I am now following your order to essentially cease and desist from editing that article, and since I have disengaged with you and I will no longer edit the associated talk page as well, I now have no control or influence on wither the material you object to continues to appear in the Brandon Flowers article. I hope you come to understand the chilling effects of your veiled threats, and that they are counter-productive here at Wikipedia, but as you have stated you have found offense with my actions, I also hope you can also see that I have now done all that I can reasonably be asked to do. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 19:52, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please create a username! :) And better sources

Hi 208.81--- I saw you because you flagged a source as being unreliable/biased. I notice your ip seems to crop up a lot on the same pages and you engage in discussion, so I really really want to encourage you to join the wikipedia community in picking a name for yourself so we can put a "name" to you.

I think I've constructively interacted with you on three or four different articles now, but haven't noticed it until now. So pick a name so that you can make friends on here with people who don't memorize ip numbers!

In reference to the unreliable source-- I just want to established the siblinghood of two individuals, so if the rigdon site is unreliable, please help point me to a better source to establish the two individuals were related. I don't want to be using unreliable sources!

--HectorMoffet (talk) 17:26, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Hector, I've also interacted with the person/persons behind this IP a lot, and I've seen a couple of requests for them to create a user. I realize that you come here with the very best of intentions, but there are reasons why they are unwilling/unable to use an account. (I'll leave it to them to explain if they wish.) Because I'm not good at memorizing numbers either, I've taken to simply calling them 208. Perhaps you could adopt a similar solution? I personally like them as an IP editor...it serves as a reminder to me that IPs are people too and that they often make very good contributions. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:40, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
O, be some other name! // What's in a name? ...  ;-) -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 19:55, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please see User talk:208.81.184.4/Archive 1#User Name? for a less cryptic response. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 20:27, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Every time I read that thread it makes me laugh. It reminds me of people who have multiple personalities (Dissociative Identity Disorder, I guess is the proper term) and I think of funny situations that might crop up if I shared an IP with multiple people. I think I'd have fun "stalking" myself and correcting "my" grammar in talk page posts. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:58, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Number of edits

Hello '208.81.184.4'

Not sure how many people are editing from this IP, but you have racked up an impressive number of edits, click here if you want to see how many. I was an IP editor, known as '220', for several years too. :-) 220 of Borg 13:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! That's only about half of it, though; editor(s) from this IP address have a comparable number in Commons as well. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 19:41, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
:-O Never thought of that, I'll have to have à look there. I've done very little work there myself. 220 of Borg 18:10, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Utah state symbols

Wikipedia:Perennial proposals is not a valid reason to revert. The first sentence clearly states, "This is a list of things that are frequently proposed on Wikipedia, and have been rejected by the community several times in the past." The link you gave is not policy and only has proposals that were shot down.

No need to add Utah History Encyclopedia to the general section. It is already listed in the references and the General section is usually for official sources... ie State of Utah in this case. Bgwhite (talk) 22:14, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you did not read Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Changes to standard appendices correctly: "The standard appendices at the end of an article (e.g., See also, Notes, References, Further reading, and External links) should be changed to the system preferred by the editor/a particular professional field/the editor's school." It is explicitly stating that See also, Notes, References, Further reading, and External links are the WP standard appendix sections, and the proposals being rejected are ones to deviate from this; your customized appendices are the deviation from the WP standard, not mine. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 12:50, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also I did not link to the Utah History Encyclopedia generally, but to the specific "Utah State Symbols" article from that source, which is directly related to the article in question. Since you object to it being included in the references section, it could alternately fit in a Further Reading section. Also the work is authoritative, the author of the specific article is a noted historian of Utah, and there is no reasonable reason to exclude it from a further reading section. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 13:00, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Stop it right now. You have been adding this book and re-arranging this book into over a hundred articles. I don't know what your fascination is with the book, maybe you are an editor, you work for University of Utah or you are a fan.
Per WP:Further reading, "Further reading is primarily intended for publications that were not used by editors to build the current article content, but which editors still recommend." The book is already listed twice in the article, there is no need to keep spamming the article further. The state sources are listed in the General section because they are the authoritative source and they are upto date. Linda Thatcher is a Mormon historian, not sure how that makes her an authority on state symbols.
I'm not deviating from the WP standard when it comes to notes and references. I've already showed you Featured Lists (FL) and Featured Articles (FA) that use the format. Other Featured lists that use it are List of Kentucky state symbols, List of Maryland state symbols, List of Oregon state symbols and List of Washington state symbols. If you notice the Utah page uses the exact format as the other FL state symbol pages, including what goes into the general ref section. Bgwhite (talk) 20:46, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I generally find ad hominem discussion of little value, but since you seem to have some sort issue with me, I'll clarify a few things. I am not an editor, contributor, or otherwise involved with the Utah Historical Encyclopedia, nor do I have any relationship to the University of Utah. I'm also not a "fanatic" about that work, even though I do find it a useful resource here on WP.

What I am is a WikiGnome who generally works on articles related to the Latter Day Saint movement and the Western United States. I often work specifically on cleaning up references. On October 30 I found that a there are a large number of articles that were dead-linking to old URLs for the UHE (and in some cases being mistakenly removed because the ref was not complete enough for most people to find the correct resource). I've used the external link search to start working thru them (see [2] & [3]). When I started there were over 300 articles that were pointing to the old, deadlinked site, where now there is about only 125 left. While fixing a UHE ref on Deseret (Book of Mormon) I noticed that List of Utah state symbols did not include the "Utah State Symbols" UHE article, and it seemed a natural fix so I added it. And yes I did some other formatting fixes that I'm tired of discussing, and will not be pressing you about.

This editor does recommend the "Utah State Symbols" UHE article as being a very useful summary on the main topic of this WP article; even though other articles found in that multi-volume encyclopedia are being referenced in the article, there is no good reason why we can not also include in the further reading section a specific entry to the "Utah State Symbols" UHE article.

Also, please review the edit history on this article; you will find I previously have made other significant contributions to this article, dating back to a couple of months after this article was first created in 2008; this article is not a new interest to me, so I'd ask you to wp:AGF with my desire to contribute here. "Stop it right now" smacks of wp:OWN, and I find this tone inappropriate. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 22:33, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've never attacked you or whatever you think the "ad hominem" crap is. I haven't put you down or have a beef with you. My beef is you changing the article.
Well, let's see, I helped get List of governors of Utah, List of cities and towns in Utah, United States congressional delegations from Utah, and List of cities and towns in Utah to FL. I helped get Jordan River (Utah) to FA. I've added references to UHE in all of those articles. I've also rescued FL from the chopping block and had to demote FL articles as they were changed beyond repair. They key is demote.
I've seen you change the UHE refs in all the above articles. I never complained. I've seen you change refs on the other articles in my watchlist and never complained. But when you started changing the reference format of an FL because it "wasn't standard", I drew the line. It is standard. It is used in FL and FA article. I showed you this, but you refused. The format was required in some of the lists to achieve FL status. That is why I said "Stop it right now". I hate people who change things for no reason and against policy. Again, Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Changes to standard appendices is not policy, policy is Wikipedia:Layout#Notes and references. The article follows policy. I'm very protective when it comes to any FL or FA. The idea is to keep them there and not let them be demoted.
  1. I've shown you repeatably how the article follows FL/FA and policy on the references.
  2. UHE adds no value to what is already in the article. It is just repeating what the other general sources say, except that UHE is not up to date and doesn't contain most symbols.
FYI... the talkback message on talk pages is somewhat obsolete. Use {{U}}, {{ping}} or User:Bgwhite on your talk page and people with get a notification message. Only time I've used a talkback message is for new editors.
Bgwhite (talk) 23:51, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Bgwhite: I did not say that you attacked me, but you did start discussing me personally, questioning if I had some sort of a relationship with the UHE. Comments about an editor and speculations about their motives are by definition ad hominem. I apologize if you feel that I was being dismissive of your points about the formatting of appendices in my last post; I felt no need to engage with you further on that topic at the time because you had already made your points very clearly and I had nothing else to bring to that subject; just to be clear, I completely surrender to your judgment on that matter, and I again see no reason to discuss it further. I still feel that the "Utah State Symbols" UHE article would add value to the readers of List of Utah state symbols, even if you find it dated/incomplete, but I'm not going to attempt to add it back at this point. As you stated you are "very protective" of articles on your watch-list, and you obviously feel I have breached some sort of threshold here, where you will no longer tolerate edits by me on this article, so I'm just going to move on to more interesting things. Also thanks for the tip on talkback, and my usage of it in no way was meant to insinuate that I thought you were a new user or to insult you in any way. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 16:49, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problems on you editing any articles, on or off my watchlist. This includes the symbols article. As I've said, I've seen you editing pages on my watchlist and had no problems with any of your edits until now. The re-arranging of the references is what "sparked" my interest. I questioned you about your association with UHE because it is highly unusual to go thru so many articles fixing one ref. For example, I'm currently dealing with sockpuppets adding http://www.musiki.org to any article about a Turkish musician. I never thought you insinuated anything when adding the TB message. I just thought you weren't aware of the templates. About a month after notifications came on-line, I did the same FYI statement on a user's talk page. I was told that I'm a Nazi for suggesting the fascist idea and my talk page was replaced with over 20 TB.
When I first left a message, I saw your talk page and knew you weren't a typical IP editor. So, I wasn't assuming the usual IP editor routine. Besides, adding a ref to the UofU is completely understandable to be done by an IP. I wouldn't go that low, but if I did, I wouldn't want anybody to know I was a Ute sympathizer. My blood runs blue.
Things could get worse. From User talk:Ross-Novak, I guess I need to find a lawyer, "...if the page shall be so unfairly censored, insulted and changed again, there will be repercussions against the only person who has been making them, and, they will be directly presented to a Court in order to be taking very serious measures against those" Bgwhite (talk) 08:34, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Good day -- Thank you for responding to Excusatio, I appreciate you stepping in and offering advice. I am also grateful that I didn't need to Google "LDS" to figure out what he was talking about. Lettik (talk) 14:30, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Community of Christ Infobox

Someone has put the Community of Christ infobox up for deletion because he feels that we shouldn't be using an infobox on more then one page, (see here). This template is used the same way that {{Infobox LDS Church}} and his reason for deletion could very easily be applied to that page. I think that perhaps some more editor of Later Day Saint pages need to chime in, of we are going to find that this will happens to a number of LDS Related infobox templates.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 13:23, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@ARTEST4ECHO: Looks like your concerns are right on target: see template:Infobox LDS Church & Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 December 2#Template:Infobox LDS Church. - 208.81.184.4 (talk)

Lost boys (Mormon fundamentalism)

Hi, I've restored the archive URL to the citation for the reasons described in Wikipedia:LINKROT. —rybec 20:14, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aaronic Priesthood

First, like others have done I would recommend that you use a user name as opposed to the obnoxious ip address, second concerning the change you made to my references from William G. Hartley. I intentionally placed page numbers individually not as a group because when someone wishes to verify the facts referenced, it is easier to read one page rather than the entire book/article/or whatever it be. Also, the short citation style seems to be the "used" style on this page and according to guideline from wikipedia, we editors should try to match the same style to avoid what has happened to the article aaronic priesthood from happening, which is very unsightly. Please do not take me the wrong way, but I try to adhere to certain guidelines and preferences when editting to make it easier on those that follow. I have had to, in the past, go through large publications just to ferret out a single piece of information that would have been easier to find had the original editor used a single page reference instead of pp 14-296. Thanks and keep up the editing and please get a username. speednat (talk) 21:47, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Individual page numbers are now back on that article for your recently added paragraphs; is this satisfactory? -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 22:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was near simultaneously redoing it; however I also reworked your references to match the style that was already incorporated in the article. I hope this does not come across the wrong way. Looking at your edit history, it seems you are similar to me in my beliefs, and I sincerely do not wish to step on toes, my intention is to improve and expand the Wiki's, by adding information and also by making it easier to read, research, and verify. Thanks for all your excellent LDS additions . speednat (talk) 22:14, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, concerning the Aaronic Priesthood article, I was planning on adding more to it from that same Journal article which is about 80 pages long. speednat (talk) 22:16, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Glad that you are going to expand; the article could use the work. The Encyclopedia of Mormonism is a single large work, and shouldn't be be listed multiple times in the ref's section. In the inline portion I cited in as short of a style as is reasonable in this instance for these entries (which is why they didn't have the ISBN, etc on each of them them). -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 22:18, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The problem I have is that the Citation styles are clashing. We have a short style (already established) and then the longer style. It is accepted that the styles should match. I don't want to just revert your changes as that just causes hurt feelings hence the communication here so that we can try to attain an amenable solution. Please think on this and help me come up with a way to make it look more professional. Thanks speednat (talk) 22:23, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
With deferring kinds of works being cited, especially when citing from a very large compendium of multiple works (such as the EoM), one may not always be able to match perfectly one particular citation style. I've further truncated the EoM entries to truncate off the editor, as it is not needed for disambiguation, so the inline citations are as short as possible while also including the entry-specific details needed to properly created the individual authors. This seems to be a reasonable compromise -- what do you think? -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 22:31, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It still is a differing style. I don't know the best solution. I am trying to find an answer or where this problem has been dealt with before to see what others have done, but I am coming up empty. I will continue to search for a precedence,but in the meanwhile I will defer. It is not, at this point, something that should be causing aggravation. However, if you haven't already, take a look at Citation style differences. thanks again speednat (talk) 22:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I see your point, but it looks equally bad in the ref section to repetitively list the same publication information for the same overarching work; given that, I tried something a little unusuial, again to see if we can come to a meeting of the minds. Please take a look. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 22:55, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nice I like the compromise, the only sticking point I now have is on the page #'s on mine, but I will wait until I read the entire article and edit from that. Again thanks for working with me and making it look good.
I would like to adjust the references to parenthesize the years and doing so is going to require adjusting out the {{harvnb}} templates. I don't want to start another row with you, and also to change the references that I placed back to the page #'s down below, since that was the style to begin with. I won't change the adjustment for your Encyclopedia of Mormonism references that we agreed looked good. Please work with me on this. Thanks again. speednat (talk) 17:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, go for it. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 17:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks speednat (talk) 17:46, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Speednat: Now that I see your intent, I guess I misunderstood: I thought you had meant that you were going to fix the harv style refs that I had consolidated and used the {{rp}}, not that you were going to remove all of the harv ref templates. There is no benefit to the article or indeed to the reader for you to do so, as the "Hartley, William G. (1996), p. 95" formatting is essentially the same as "Hartley 1996, p. 95" except you lose the link to the ref section item both when you hover over the ref in the article text, as well as in the notes section. Given that, your personally preferred format has no benefits, and I do not think we slavishly need to keep this, regardless of any perception that this is the "established style" for refs on this article. Until your recent edits on 22 November 2013‎ there was no "established style" for refs on this article, and such a recent claim to "FIRST!" does not merit much weight in the way of precedent. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 22:20, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also very concerned by the close paraphrasing of Hartley 1996 in the text you added today. Additionally the 1849-1877 section is so long and detailed that it is creating a wp:WEIGHT issue on the article; ideally it would be somewhere around 3 paragraphs with 4 sentences each, and wouldn't include the extensive BY quote, nor have as much trivia and references to non-notable people. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 22:43, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry been ill for a few days. Maybe I am getting a bit detailed. Let me finish up and then let's pose the question as to whether the article should be created for History of the Aaronic Priesthood (LDS Church), and then move the majority of the information over. speednat (talk) 21:25, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to hear that you've been ill; hope you are feeling better now. I'm fine with waiting a week or two to see what your final results are with this series of edits. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 21:37, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
Thanks again for your idea and compromise on Aaronic Priesthood speednat (talk) 06:28, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quality scale

Hi ... I added an updated quality scale ranking to update Colonia Díaz. Could you take a look at it make sure I was right? Thank you! Bobjgalindo (talk) 15:26, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

re: Category:Latter Day Saint culture

Hello, 208.81.184.4. You have new messages at Fayenatic london's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Please quit stalking me and other things

First, I would like to point out that I do not appreciate you Wikihounding me. For someone that has edited near nothing but LDS articles, it seems kind of weird that you would happen upon an obscure article like Operation Z. Second, if you would do a little research before randomly throwing out templates, you would see that the author of the Operation Z article--Me-- has already realized that there is a duplicity issue and has attempted to start a discussion. Third, going back to the template --harvnb--. There is no set way to make a FA regardless of what you show or state to me. Just because some articles show that they use that specific template is what some people would call anecdotal evidence -- meaning Wikt:correlation does not imply causation. BTW, I do like the harvnb template, so my dislike for your arguments is in no way influenced by my logic. I just do not enjoy being stalked and having to defend myself against an editors pointed attempts at subtle harassment. I am giving notice to please cease your stalking behavior. speednat (talk) 20:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Speednat: First, please assume good faith: you had said you were going to work on Aaronic priesthood (Latter Day Saints) but didn't. I did check Special:Contributions/Speednat to see if there was recent activity by you (wondering if perhaps you may have fallen ill again), as you had mentioned above that you had needed more time to work on that article. Once I saw that you had made quite a number of recent contributions, I assumed that you had lost interest in the article, so I made the changes that I had previously mentioned.
I have in no way harassed you in my actions today (I support both the existence of Operation Z (1944) and deferred to you on what the proper names is on the topic). As for the Harv templates, I'm not the only one that has tried to explain this to you: this user did a much better job of it than I have.
As far as Operation Z (1944)/Z Plan (Japan), in looking at your user history I noticed that you had created that article yesterday, and so I looked at it to see if it was just a stub, which might indicate that you may not be editing at "full-steam" at this point; instead I found a start class article on a topic I'd never heard of that was pretty interesting. I do have an interest in WWII, but the guys at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history are usually so on top of things that I've found little if anything I can do to contribute to those kinds of articles. Likewise I have an interest in Japan, but my Japanese language skills have regressed to a point where I can usually do little to help on those articles, as most of the sources are in Japanese. Adding the merge templates to those two articles is non-controversial WikiGnoming, especially as you had already opened a related discussion on the talk page. The whole point of those discussions is that you are inviting other people to discuss the topic, including random passers-by, and in the cases of duplicate articles, the templates I added only enhance that goal.
How can you know what I generally edit if you didn't also look at my edit history? There is no crime in this, as looking at this is one way to get a feel for another editor. However keep in mind that it doesn't always give a complete picture. One of the reasons I seem to get stuck edit articles related to wp:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement here on WP is that I can hold my own on these topics; usually when I have tried to branch out, I have been slapped down, as you will see in my edit history for the last 7+ years, and also on the old User talk page associated with this IP. I suppose that I really am not surprised at yet another incident feeding into that negative feedback loop, which again seems to push me into generally staying in the Mormon ghetto, where apparently I belong. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 21:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like an @$$ now, let me apologize, I guess I have been doing too many things at once. First, concerning the rant about the harvnb templates, I got you confused with someone else --BGWhite--, I still feel the same way. That there is no set way, not that there shouldn't be, but there isn't. Now with that said, I have decided that I like how the harvnb works ...mostly, so I have started to use it. Concerning the Aaronic Priesthood article, I have limited time to work on it, as I am a full-time student with 5 kids, a demanding wife, and the source material is not a regular book ie. can only be checked out for a limited time with a dangerous overdue fine level, so I try to do that work at school which is where I try to do my homework --see 5 kids above--- however the wife--- see wife above-- likes me home as soon as possible because of the kids ---again see kids above. It just seemed that you were stalking me, I have had a similar thing occur on Wiktionary and I love to edit over there but the headache I get forces me to do that less and less because of one person. speednat (talk) 21:58, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's a great honor & privilege to be both a spouse & a father, and I completely respect the challenges you face. Cherish them, as you never know how long you will have them. Both they and your studies are far more important than this shared hobby you & I have of editing Wikipedia. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 22:26, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
...but please keep editing when you reasonably can (many hands, light work, etc/asf)... -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 23:09, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Parable of the Olive Tree

Hi. Thank you for adding a box to the "talk page" for this article, which I hope will encourage more editors to work on it. I'm the person who originally started the article, but (as you can surely see) I'm no theologian. If you know of any skilled LDS editors who might make a useful contribution, please mention this article to them. Thank you. RomanSpa (talk) 02:48, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notes to self

Remember the following:

Thanks. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 16:37, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 17:20, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Non-dispersing sub-cats

I noticed your edits on the categorization of Mia Love reflected a slight confusion. Category:African-American Latter Day Saints, like all categories by ethnicity is a non-diffusing category. That means, people should be in both Category:African-American Latter Day Saints and in Category:American Latter Day Saints, not just in the former. I mainly bring this up because I have been attacked for not understanding non-diffusing categories and so am trying to help others avoid this same problem.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:43, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

{{lds}} template

FYI - I responded here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement#Template:lds question --Trödel 19:42, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Book of Mormon template

I have added my reasons for inclusion of the Latter-day Saints Portal on this template talk page. Please discuss.--79.192.16.44 (talk) 14:52, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion sought

Wouldn't mind hearing what you think here about Translation (Mormonism). I'm not clear on what the best solution would be. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:11, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Print versus electronic citation

Hi 208, it looks like we disagree on whether to cite the electronic source or the print source (with a link.) This question was discussed a couple of years ago at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources/Archive 33#Print versus online citations. I think that using the print source and keeping the link would be the best approach, but I hope you read the linked discussion and consider my approach a little more. Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 19:16, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't responded to this, so I may go back and change the citation. Would be interested in your thoughts after you read the linked discussion. Bahooka (talk) 15:42, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I did read it, and while I don't think that conversation is conclusive, if you really are passionate about changing it back, go ahead. I was still contemplating on this issue after having read this: LaFrance, Adrienne (June 26, 2014), "A Corrected History of the Typo", The Atlantic. Toward the end of the article it has some interesting thoughts about the correction of online sources after the print version is published. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 16:01, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the Atlantic article and your understanding of my passion for including the print citation information. I guess I have seen just too many Wikipedia citations become deadlinks and virtually useless for verifiability without the additional information. I will certainly keep the convenience link to the online article, but also include the print information in case the electronic link goes away. Best, Bahooka (talk) 16:34, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent contribution of Japanese-American interment camps

Your recent contribution of an internment camp topic is one of a whole series that can be made for Fort Bliss. If you were to list the history of the United States, the units, the wars, the operations quite faithfully echo the history of the country, dating back to the formation of the post. Thus, Japanese-Americans are only one of a series of internments; some that come to mind are the 18,000 Native American archaeological sites on the Fort Bliss military reservation, Hueco Tanks (an ancient dwelling place) and its proximity to the reservation, the Mexican Cession and formation of the post, the Civil War, the Salt wars and the re-instatement of the post, the Buffalo Soldiers and their part in the Indian wars and in the occupation of the Philippines, refugee camps from the Mexican revolution, which are part of reaction to the Villa expedition into Chihuahua and the subsequent formation of the Border Patrol, the buildup for World War I, the buildup for World War II, internment of American citizens of German, Italian, and Japanese ethnicity, Operation Paperclip and the technical community of the V-2 (from all of Europe and not just Germany), the recognition of the strategic location of the Pass and its railroads, and the convergence of military units from all allies of the United States (including military units of Germany, Japan, Canada, Saudi Arabia, etc.). Since the US Army is in over 120 countries, their militaries all seem to come here at some time or another. And, to state the obvious, Fort Bliss has been a combat zone more than once, with the attendant actions and decorations of its personnel, not only a peacetime post. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 06:40, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:208.81.184.4/Archive_1&oldid=1142448217"