User talk:Book1830

Welcome and response

Welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type Visorstuff (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use Visorstuff 17:58, 24 October 2005 (UTC) (4 tildes).[reply]
Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
Follow the Wikipedia:Simplified Ruleset
Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
Remember Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

I love the user name, and am jealous of your job. I've responded to your note at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Latter_Day_Saint_movement#Signature_Book_links. Please read the Project page at WP:LDS for categorizations, styles and naming conventions. And HAPPY EDITING! -Visorstuff 17:58, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Material moved from your anon page

Link on Mormon

Just to let you know, I moved your link on the Mormon article to the Essays site to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Since it was an external link (off Wikipedia), it seemed to fit better with the other church-friendly external links on that page. Deadsalmon 02:17, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Signature Book Links

Hi - we are trying to understand the reasoning of why you are adding signature book URLs to references. It is beginning to look like Link spamming to a number of us. Can you give some rationale to why a Signature Book link, rather than an Amazon.com or other book site is being used? Also, as you are an anonymous user, do you work for Signature Books? Some background on yourself would be useful. We are fine with them being added, but need more details to understand or they may be deemed link spam. Please respond at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement#Signature Book links. Thanks, and happy editing - keep up the good work. -Visorstuff 22:41, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I found a very offensive article about Mike Quinn, one of our authors a few weeks back on Wikipedia. I figured out how to make the corrections on the page and found that others had been providing bibliographic (and sometimes irrelevant) information about various subjects that Signature Books has published on. I thought it would be helpful to provide relevant bibliographic information. I saw others providing links to the books, so I did the same. I would love any useful advise. book1830 09:04, 24 October 2005

I'm probably one of the culprits of the "offensive" material. I have nothing against Mr. Quinn, but find his style unprofessional for a historian of his research caliber. He tends to draw conclusions where there is no evidence to draw the said conclusion. But that is fine. It is his style and he is a respected researcher. I love to go back to his sources. He does his homework. But to say "Brigham felt this" or "Smith must have done it because of this" when there is no primary documents to support it, is not wise historical writing. Bottom line - research: good, writing: poor. Conclusions and theories: unfouded in many cases. I've discussed this issue at Talk:Joseph Smith (probably archived) and many other places.

I noticed you removed one or two items from the page - your corrections above - the edit I believe was included by a big D. Michael Quinn fan - User:CODGEN (so I know it was not meant as offenseive). The bulk of your edits to the article were adding in Signature Book links. Some context to your edits are as follows. you removed the following:

"His books provide historical support for a naturalistic, humanistic and secular-influenced view of Mormon history"

This is not offensive. Many Mormon historians at the current time, inclduing Barrett are naturalistic. They tend to explain it from the point of view of "if there wasn't the supernatural, this is what affected the historical figures." Magic World View is a perfect example of naturalistic and humanistic history.

Please don't feel I hate or even dislike the man. I don't know him well enough to have an opinion of him personally, but I do know his research, and I've stated my opinion as such. Good researcher, poor historian. I'm sure people feel the same way about me. -Visorstuff 18:33, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]