User talk:FishUtah

Welcome![edit]

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! —Wknight94 (talk) 00:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918[edit]

Parts of this discussion can be found here

Hi - no suggestion of deliberate NAm bias, its just that the weight of numbers can give that impression - at various times Peregrine Falcon and Golden Eagle have read as if they occur nowhere else

Another minor point with the Migratory Bird Act. I was looking again at Anhinga, and it struck me that the original version of the protection bit doesn't actually say where they are protected - the Act's title gives no clue. Most of the Anhinga's ramge is actually outside the Act's area.

I'm a bit surprised that species like Anhinga are on the list - I thought they were non-migratory, and I'm sure they don't fly from Florida to Canada, Japan or Russia very often. I suppose the legislators knew what they were doing... jimfbleak 05:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Mormon[edit]

Curious list you have going at "Anti-Mormonism." Right now it includes Far West, Missouri; Mormon miracle pageant; Salt Lake Tribune; and Richard Mouw. Why View of the Hebrews should be included in such an unusual grouping, I have no idea.--John Foxe 20:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Far West was a significant location in early anti-Mormon efforts, as is born out in the article, and some of that material probably could even be better incorporated in the main Anti-Mormon article
The Mormon miracle pageant is currently a significant location in modern anti-Mormon efforts, also as born out in the article - more than half of that article as it currently stands (including the lead picture for the article) is actually about the yearly anti-Mormon efforts being made there
The Salt Lake Tribune has a historic (and unarguably current) relationship to anti-Mormonism
Richard Mouw has had a significant recent role in his efforts to bridge the gap between the Mormon and anti-Mormon communities, for which he has criticized by many of the hard-line anti-Mormons
View of the Hebrews belongs somewhere in this category because of it's early (and ongoing in some circles) role played as source material in attempts by anti-Mormons to "debunk" the Book of Mormon

I agree that currently the category is kind of sloppy on the edges. I think there may be some opportunity to move much of this into clearer subcategories under the broader anti-Mormon heading, but I'm still working through this. For example, I think that for the moment a subtopic of Anti-Mormon literature would be too narrow, and things like VotH would also not properly fit in that category. I have been contemplating instead something like Anti-Mormon materials or Material related to anti-Mormonism, which could potentially include items printed intentionally as anti-Mormon, as well as source material (like VotH) where the primary reason for their significance is the claims & counter-claims made about them because of anti-Mormonism. By also including things like the God Makers films in that category, perhaps the broader category could be cleaned up a bit. I also am considering a Places related to anti-Mormonism, a People related to anti-Mormonism, and a Organizations related to anti-Mormonism. That should split things up much more clearly, but I'm not sure yet sure I'm ready to do any of this yet. -- FishUtah 03:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually after writing this up I have gained enough confidence in this approach that I think it will work. See you in the funny papers... -- FishUtah 03:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, with a CfD already listed on Category:Material related to anti-Mormonism, maybe I should have gone to the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement first. Hindsight is 20/20, as the saying goes, so I did post this. We'll see how the discussion goes. -- FishUtah 15:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With the criteria you've mentioned, almost anything connected with Mormonism could be considered for one of your anti-Mormon categories. How about Book of Mormon because it's almost always ridiculed by opponents of the Church; or Temple Square because any time I've been there, there's been someone nearby with a sign or handing out tracts; or Joseph Smith, Jr. because his life story is playground for opponents of Mormonism? My feeling is that this whole project is a "bridge too far" in the realm of pigeon-holing. --John Foxe 19:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LDSproject[edit]

All religion articles are a rough neighborhood, but that doesn't mean you should drop out of this WikiProject or stop editing religion articles. Certainly there are contributions you could make that would avoid controversy (if that is your desire) and still help the project, such as peer review, copy edits, commenting on articles, etc. --Lethargy 22:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I warned you when you asked me to show you how to edit, but you still had to go and edit controversial topics. Either have a thick enough skin to stay in the fight or go back to being a wiki-gnome! -- Argon233 ^T C _{_@ ∉} 22:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for being soooo supportive (not); how long did I have bug you before you showed me how to edit? And who's the one that's actually editing, while you just talk about it? I think I'm really not a WikiGnome, I'm more of a WikiHobbit; I'd rather stay home in the Shire and do nice normal boring things like tending a garden, but I keep getting swept up in things that are much bigger and more important than I am. -- FishUtah 23:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but here is a reminder for next time --> DO NOT come complaining to me again (online or offline) when you get bit again, because it's going to happen, again & again. None of the hobbits in the LotR came through their journeys unscathed, and neither will you here on Wikipedia. -- Argon233 ^T C _{_@ ∉}

...and don't get any grand delusions that you are one of the main hobbits either; you are at most Pippen... ;-) -- Argon233 ^T C _{_@ ∉} 23:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would definitely not suggest you stop editing because your category will be rightfully deleted. But start off a bit smaller, hmm? Work on writing articles, work with other editors on collaborative projects, THEN start working on maintenence, like creating categories, etc. You'll find a lot more interesting, I think. If you need any help regarding how to edit, I am very happy to answer any questions you may have. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not stopping editing for now because I care so much about that category; it because I fell in the same trap of assuming bad faith on the part of other peoples edits, in this case the CfD by you, that I've been so sensitive of when others do it to me. Argon233 warned me when I asked him to show me the ropes here that I would eventually start doing it too. He told me that even though there's usually is a veneer of assuming good faith, that eventually many individuals or groups here take a circle the wagons, wild west, "us verses them" mentality that takes over a lot of editors. He told me that in his experience most editors learn to control the impulse, with varying degrees of success, and learn to cooperate well enough that things keep moving forward on the articles, but that it can be a difficult transition. I'm afraid I'm starting to do the same thing, and I'm giving myself a time-out. Hopefully I'll come back a better editor

It would seem that a certain degree of enmity toward something/someone is just part of the normal human condition; everyone has their own bias and POV to contend with. I just don't want to do anything that encourages that enmity; it's something to be rooted out, not nourished. I guess that I was just too naive; I didn't believe that I would ever get caught up in any of that, but Argon233 told me he didn't think he would either when he was part of Wikipedia:SPAM, but eventually all he saw was SPAM, everywhere he looked, and instead of editing being something he enjoyed it became a self imposed duty/obligation that numbed instead of enhanced his life, so he stopped editing; maybe a little time away every once in a while will also help me avoid burning out like him.

I'll probably just eventually start to make edits as an anon IP again, even though that can be painful too with so many people taking pot-shots at edits made by IP's, but at least that way I won't be able to create very many problems either, since contributions made by IP's are so highly scrutinized, and it's so easy to dismiss comments made on talk pages by IP's that it's not usually worth trying, giving me incentive to keep my big mouth shut. -- FishUtah 21:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know who Argon233 is, but I don't think there is that level of emnity on Wikipedia. Certainly, I was hostile on the CfD, but I felt I was being slandered and I accept I probably shouldn't have reacted as strongly as I did. The fact that you've recognised that you did assume bad faith is fantastic - because it means you probably won't do it again. I think that your edits so far show you have the potential to be a brilliant editor, and I don't think you should give up just yet. When you come back, if you still think you need teaching "the ropes" I'd be happy to teach you if you desire. Argon233 sounds somewhat pessimistic. True, things go horribly wrong here sometimes, such as my current dispute with Badbilltucker which you can see on my talkpage, but generally speaking, everything works out Ok. I look forward to seeing you edit once again (do it under your username!). Yours, Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Argon233 is a close family member and we live in the same household. I have been editing just from an IP address for the last little while, but I guess I'm ready to start participating some of the time from the registered account. -- FishUtah 16:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Law related to Anti-Mormonism[edit]

I notice that you were the creator of Category:Law related to Anti-Mormonism, and I'd like to notify you that I've proposed that it be renamed as Category:Law related to Mormonism. I think it's a useful category, but it seemed to me that the laws in the category were addressed to Mormonism or its practices (such as 19th-century polygamy), rather than to Anti-Mormonism. I'd prefer to avoid the "anti-" tag where it isn't necessary, and in this case it seems more natural to just describe the category as "Law related to Mormonism." BRMo 22:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Temples of CJC[edit]

As a contributor to the different lists of temples, I was wondering if you could give some feedback concerning the addition several columns to the Comparison of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints page. thx --Trödel 22:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Mormon images[edit]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Anti-Mormon images, by MSJapan (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Anti-Mormon images fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:

This is not an article, but a collection of images in article space that merely indexes images already in use in other articles, as is stated clearly in the header. Therefore, this is duplicated material with no context or utility whatsoever (every image is in the Anti-Mormonism article already).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Anti-Mormon images, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 17:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Proposal[edit]

As you are a recent editor of the articles in question, please see my merge proposal of Hugh Nibley and Egyptian names in the Book of Mormon - thanks. --Descartes1979 (talk) 04:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After discussion and a second look, I am changing my proposal to merge with Linguistics and the Book of Mormon#Egyptian names. That is a much more natural fit for the content of Egyptian Names in the Book of Mormon. See the new discussion here. --Descartes1979 (talk) 21:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Personal Freedom Outreach[edit]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Personal Freedom Outreach, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Personal Freedom Outreach. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Northwestgnome (talk) 17:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edit's[edit]

This is your only warning.
The next time you make a personal attack, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people.

Ichthus: January 2012[edit]

ICHTHUS

January 2012

In this issue...

Ichthus is the newsletter of Christianity on Wikipedia • It is published by WikiProject Christianity
For submissions contact the Newsroom • To unsubscribe add yourself to the list here

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]