User talk:Lethargy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This user is taking a short wikibreak to go on a vacation.


Welcome!
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

  • Please respect others' copyrights; do not copy and paste the contents from webpages directly.
  • Please use a neutral point of view when editing articles; this is possibly the most important Wikipedia policy.
  • If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
  • Do not add unreasonable contents into any articles, such as: copyrighted text, advertisement messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Adding such unreasonable information or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism, and and result in your account being blocked.

The Wikipedia Tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. Again, welcome! —Kf4bdy talk contribs

Contents

[edit] First Vision rewrite request

Hey - noticed that you requested a complete rewrite of the First Vision article. When identifying articles that need some kind of attention, it is customary to list the reasons for the tag on the talk page for the article. This is particularly true when using the {{cleanup-rewrite}} since it specifically refers people who want to help with such a rewrite to the talk page. Could you add comments on why you tagged the article here. Thx in adv - Trödel 01:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Noticed you added the tag to Blacks and Mormonism also - so some comments would be helpful there as well. Trödel 01:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry I haven't added that yet. Some of my reasons for adding the template in both cases are already covered (by other editors) on the respective talk pages, each one mentioning a rewrite. In short though, each one seems to have POV and readability problems, but I will need to add some reasons to the talk pages once I've had a chance to clear my head a bit. --Lethargy 10:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Great Thx Trödel 14:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
So much for clearing my head. I came down with a fever recently, so I'm on temporary wikiholiday. In the meantime, I'll take down the requests until I can explain my reasons further. --Lethargy 09:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Hope you feel better - shoot me a note on my talk page when you post some info - so I can help on the cleanup. Trödel 12:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:LAKES

Hello! You have expressed interest in the WP:LAKES so I took the liberty of adding your username to the participants section of the project. I have also created User WikiProject Lakes though I may not have followed correct procedures with creating the logo. So, if you would like to add that logo to your userpage, you are certainly welcome to. And if you can figure out how I was supposed to create the logo, please let me know ;) Em3rald 17:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah thank you! Yes I am interested in WP:Lakes, and I'm willing to help out however I can. I'm not sure how you were supposed to create the logo though. :) --Lethargy 17:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • You are more than welcome! And don't hesitate to let me know if I do something you don't like. The LAST thing I want to do is step on someone elses work! I'm working on the category thing right now ... I'll let you know when it's complete ... it might take me awhile, I am learning as I go. But definitely keep up the suggestions ... every little detail you can help identify will add to our overall professionalism, and I like that haha ;) Em3rald 17:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Hmm, I see how categories work ... and I see you've added the category link to the banner image - problem is, that banner is only intended for TALK pages, so the only pages that are now categorized are the TALK pages. Not quite what we desired. however, I think I know what to do now (based on what you've done), so I think I can correct the issue. I'll let you know (or it will be obvious ;) ... Em3rald 18:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
If I understand correctly, the talk pages are the only thing we should actually be categorizing to this project, that is how the others do it. BTW, I saw my first edit conflict message while trying to fix the category page ;) apparently you beat me to it. --Lethargy 18:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Haha, sorry about that ... doing some mad editing, trying new things, trial by fire sorta thing. And yes, I see what you are saying about the talk pages. /my bad. I returned it to how you set it up (silly me). I also think most lakes need more overall categorization. Lakes of Canada, Lakes of the World, that sort of thing. I am half-ways working on that right now too. Em3rald 18:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your user page

I hope you don't mind ... I took the liberty of putting your user boxes in to a table. If you don't like me doing so, by all means and revert :D. On the other hand, you might consider making a user page that looks fancy! I stole the basic ideas for mine from Sango123 who is more than willing to help any wikipedian with design & layout. Cheers! Em3rald 08:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I really should have done that a long time ago, but for some reason I never got around to it. By the way, Sango123 has an incredible user page, I should definitely figure out how to do some of the things she has done with her page, particularly the rounded edges. Anyway, thank you for cleaning that up for me, it was a mess I wasn't skilled enough to clean up myself. --Lethargy 18:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the thumbs up, I considered giving you an award, but I thought it would seem too weird to give an award to the person who just gave you an award... if that makes sense. :) --Lethargy 22:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You've been busy!

Wow, I noticed some of the excellent work you've done for the Lakes project recently! You and User:ThreeBlindMice have been very busy the last day or two. Rest assured, it doesn't go unnoticed. I just wanted to say thanks. Em3rald 06:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dead Sea

What specific points did you think needed copyediting on this article? Did you consider being WP:BOLD and editing it yourself? If there's anything specific you want done, respond here, on my talk, or on the article's talk page and I'll try to help. Thanks. --Guinnog 21:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Update: I see most of my points have already been brought up by the peer review, including a need for copy-editing. Perhaps the tag should go back, but I'd rather we just deal with it ourselves rather than tagging it again. Please review the peer review to see what has been suggested to improve the article. --Lethargy 23:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
That was fast! Anyway, I did try doing it myself, but I eventually ran into problems where I couldn't sort out exactly how to organize things without duplicating it elsewhere, if that makes sense. Using the second paragraph as an example of my problems with the article:

The Dead Sea surface elevation of the shoreline is the lowest land point on earth. At 418 m (1371 ft) below sea level falling [1], even though the Jordan River is a tributary. This endorheic body of water is the deepest hypersaline lake in the world measuring 67 km long, up to 18 km wide and 799 m below sea level in depth at its deepest point.

  • This needs rewording, and parts of it should be split into the first paragraph, as they are more notable than the location of the lake.
  • There needs to be an "and" between level and falling.
  • The source should be a footnote, as there is a notes section.
  • What do they mean by "even though the Jordan River is a tributary"? Is it notably larger than other rivers (yes I have heard of it).
  • "This endorheic body of water is the deepest hypersaline lake in the world measuring 67 km long, up to 18 km wide and 799 m below sea level in depth at its deepest point." If the sentence starts by saying it is the deepest, the depth of the sea should follow directly after, and it should be a measure of depth, rather than a level below sea level.
  • The depth and salinity should really be in the opening paragraph, as they are probably the most notable feature of the lake.
  • IMO some mention should be in the lead that the lake is mentioned in several places in the Bible.
  • U.S. Customary units would be nice in parenthesis for us silly americans who need that sort of thing.

Most of these I could do myself, and indeed I tried, but unfortunately I am not a great writer, so once I start splitting things into other paragraphs, I end up with a mess worse than when I started. It would probably be better if someone else did that part of it, though I will certainly try to help if I can.

Certainly there are more problems in the article, but I'll have to work on those later.

--Lethargy 22:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I think I am fairly happy with the changes I have now made to the article, but it would be nice to have someone check my work and make sure I didn't lose anything while I was combining paragraphs and rewording. I'll drop the tag for now though. --Lethargy 23:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Looks like it could use a lot more citations for references too, but I don't know if that is actually part of copy-editing. --Lethargy 23:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bear lake

I have made my clarification there. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 19:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Improving Fish related articles

Hi Lethargy. I see that you are a member of Wikiproject: Fishes and I was wondering if you are interested in helping to improve fish related articles (in particular Goldfish and Ryukin). QuizQuick 21:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mormon collaboration of the month

Thanks for adding yourself to the Mormon CoM. I noticed your note about it being redundant with the LDS Movement collaboration, but I think its creation was necessary for a few reasons, the biggest of which was that the LDS Movement collaboration was defunct. The Mormon CoM, on the other hand, is and will continue to be up-to-date - even if I'm the only contributor (which is sometimes the case). In any case, I look forward to working with you on various Mormon related projects. --uriah923(talk) 13:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mormon collaboration selection

Your nomination has been selected for the August 2006 Mormon collaboration: Mormon handcart pioneers. I look forward to working with you to improve the article. --uriah923(talk) 15:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Great Salt Lake

Sure, I can add some stuff to it. I won't be able to do it at this precise moment, but I can especially add a lake-effect snow section to it, as it's one of the most important influences on Salt Lake City's weather. I'm not sure if I'll be able to do much on the other things; hydrology and ecosystems aren't my specialty. That seems to be where you excel, although I may be able to contribute some with the sources provided on the to-do list. bob rulz 05:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I was planning on adding an entire section about the lake-effect to the article. Oh, but in the lead, I think 1 or possibly 2 sentences would be appropriate, but an entire paragraph on it in the lead seems a bit much. bob rulz 01:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for the quick GA review on Operation Wrath of God. I realized afterward that it could also fit in the Social Sciences GA category, but I guess either is fine. Again I appreciate your helpful crits. --Joshdboz 00:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem, I was glad to help. As for which category it fits in, I am not sure, but feel free to move it if you feel necessary. --Lethargy 03:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Capitol Reef NP

I'm no slouch in the procrastination department myself, but I promise to look over the Capitol Reef National Park article and put my comments here. Also, I have some photos of Capitol Reef-- I'll upload them and put them on my user page so you can decide if you want to use them. --Rmwarnick 16:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review

I noticed you responded to the peer review for Salt Lake City, and I must say it helps a lot just for that little bit. First off I looked at the climate section and there is mention of the lake-effect there: "Lake-effect snow occurs often from mid-fall through mid-winter, and can lead to localized excessive snowfalls." However, do you think it deserves more mention? Even I believe that the climate section is already getting a bit long (despite how much I love meteorology), and I've been thinking of a few ways I could rewrite it without losing any valuable information but making it more concise and informative. Also, simply for future reference, all population estimates I have mentioned come from official U.S. Census Bureau estimates, although simply because there have been some people questioning where those figures come from (others besides you) I can add a reference to it in the article. The occurrance of the lake stink thing can be solved with adding "ocassionally" to the sentence, but as you said it would be great it we could find a source to how often that happens. Also, you seem to know how the notes system works better than me; is the current format correct with just the external link and a description of it next to it, or would it need that more in-depth reference description that I find in other articles? Thanks for all the help with everything so far, and hopefully we can get both Great Salt Lake and Salt Lake City, Utah to featured status soon. And yes, I think I will go add a section on the lake-effect on Great Salt Lake now... bob rulz 13:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, well, perhaps I could find a way to squeeze that link in there. By the way, the article is at 2003 Utah snowstorm; unfortunately there's nothing about the lake-effect in that article (I could squeeze a mention of it in there), since info on the actual storm is so sparse. I've found next to nothing of it on the Internet; all the links mentioned in that article are everything that I have found on that storm. Anyway, thanks for the clarification on the references; I started editing Wikipedia long before the whole inline referencing/notes thing was ever used extensively, so I never really took the time to learn it all that well, I must admit. Should I go and rename all of the references in the Salt Lake City article? Also, I think I need to work on trimming down the Salt Lake City article some more; I personally am okay with the length, but some people over at the FAC seem to be hostile to articles of its length. And yes, I think I'm going to add a reference to the estimate right at this moment...all of the estimates come from www.census.gov. bob rulz 00:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Salt Lake City Tornado

Hmm, I may be able to find some of the stuff that you mention on the talk page. Here's a great source for tornadoes in Utah. I think a Tornadoes in Utah article would be a great idea. I'll also analyze the article and figure out the best way to split it up. I don't know how much additional information I can find, however. I'll do some searching. Lastly, while we're on this subject, do you think that this is worthy of being an article? I've been working it as a subpage for a while and I originally planned for it not to be an article, thinking that information would be too sparse. However, I'm even surprised at the quality it's turned out to be. And I also finally created a lake-effect section on the Great Salt Lake article. Hopefully it's satisfactory. bob rulz 22:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Finding info on the Legacy Highway to include in the Great Salt Lake article shouldn't be too much of a problem, although with everything resolved and the highway under construction now, it may be harder to find info on what people were worried about before. Also, if I do make the 2006 weather thing an article, I wouldn't plan on making it a good article or featured article or anything, so a footnotes system isn't as important. As for drought information, you can find it here: [2] It's updated weekly. There's an archive at the top that has it dating back as far as it goes (1999, actually). Very helpful resource. I would make subpages for previous years, but since the National Weather Service doesn't keep archives, it's really hard to find info on a lot of this stuff, unfortunately. bob rulz 05:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
One thing I didn't mention, I could include info on how it compares to the average and previous years. I know a great website that keeps that sort of information. bob rulz 05:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Johnny Appleseed

My apologies. I tend to end up with 20 or more windows open when I'm editing, and most of the time when I get an edit conflict message, I'm conflicting with myself. I usually check, but all of a sudden, Wikipedia started sending "can't connect to database" error messages, so I couldn't. In any case, I'm sorry and I didn't mean to trample your edit. ClairSamoht - Help make Wikipedia the most authoritative source of information in the world 23:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I've been away

Sorry I didn't get back to your regarding your article -- I have been greviously neglecting the Wikipedia lately because of various other "close-to-home" and real-life priorities. Work, school, family ... that sort of thing. I will go check out your article and give you some feedback though - better late than never, I suppose :D. Em3rald 02:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fac

Hi Lethargy, I just wanted to let you know that I self-nominated the article Operation Wrath of God here for FA. You had helped greatly with this article's peer review and GA, so if you have the chance, I would appreciate any comments you could make here. Thanks again, Joshdboz 12:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the support! I owe you one. Joshdboz 00:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] citations missing template

Hi - I noted that an anon user had added the citation missing template to Zion National Park and Capitol Reef National Park. Both are well written non-controversial articles with references listed. The Zion Park article is a featured article. I consider the tags at the top of a good article to be quite ugly and as they were added by an anon, I simply removed them. I see you have reverted that with the comment, footnotes are needed.

Firstly - no, footnotes are not needed as they are not required by wiki policy. Citations may be needed for some information in the article to relate the info to a source in the ref section. A cite needed tag at the point of concern would suffice. A cite could then be inserted via either a footnote or my pref a Harvard ref note.
The glaringly distractive tag should be placed on the talk page rather than uglify a well written article.
If the tag is placed it should be accompanied by a talk page comment specifying the problems.
Virtually every article on wikipedia would end up with that ugly tag if left to the whim of any anon who happens along without any need for clarifying discussion.

Thanks, Vsmith 01:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Citations-needed and Template:Citations needed

Hi Lethargy. Would you mind deleting the redirects Template:Citations-needed and Template:Citations needed you created? Just blank them and insert {{db-author}}. An admin will then delete them.
Creating template redirects makes template maintenace with bots more difficult (bots only look at the wiki-source for the name of the template in articles. Needing to scan for a whole list of aliases of a templates is a real pain). If there is no very stringent need for a new template redirect (like moving a template already in use to a better name per consensus), please do us botters the favor and consider not creating such redirects. Many thanks in advance for your consideration! Cheers, --Ligulem 09:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I created those to match the {{citation-needed}} template, which is used sometimes when people want to request a citation, but don't actually doubt the validity of what was posted, which is somewhat implied by adding {{fact}}. Sorry about that, but I have taken care of those that I created. --Lethargy 19:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
{{citation-needed}} is a redirect to {{fact}}. But I see your motivation. It's just really a pain with all these aliases. Think of a person that uses multiple names. Now scan a huge list with names for that person. But nevermind. I just saw that your redirects are not used anywhere, so I took the opportunity to ask for deletion before they spread in usage ;-). However, I understand that if you are used to use {{citation-needed}} then {{citations-needed}} is a logical complement. Sorry about my nitpicking then. Have a nice day! --Ligulem 20:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Ah. You already deleted them. Feel free to recreate them as you see fit. I understand your motivation better now. --Ligulem 20:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mormon handcart pioneers

You asked, "The newer version implies that not all of the emigrants went with the handcart companies, is this intentional?" Yes, I was trying to both simplify the text and make it more accurate. In reviewing the journals and other source material, I've become increasingly aware that all of the companies had some individuals drop out along the way. For example, a footnote in Hafen and Hafen says that 7 families (33 individuals) dropped out of the first company. So, yes, the slight change in meaning was intentional. Thank you for asking. BRMo 02:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your edits and comments on the article, which greatly improved it, and for your support for this effort. I appreciate it. — BRMo 02:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christianity

Hi Lethargy. Thanks for writing back. First, I was worried about the removal of the statement: which are historically connected to the Protestant Reformation, which is an important statement. Second, I would think it OK to move up the Mormons, but the Jehovah's Witnesses were not moved up too, and they make the same claim. Though the statement from the paragraph below: differences in basic doctrines and origins, should probably be included too, because the paragraph would then be nearly defunct (this statement is an important, and NPOV way, of mentioning the controversy surrounding JW and LDS). Please don't misunderstand - I don't mean to bash Mormonism, but it seemed a bit POV to me. Thanks! -Patstuart 03:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks and I'll look at the articles you've suggested

Lethargy, Thank you for the barnstar. I will take a look at the articles you've recommended and see if I have any thoughts. But in a few days I will be traveling (for about a week), so it may have to wait a while. (I was starting to get worried that we wouldn't get a decision on the handcart pioneers FAC until I had to travel, which would have been a problem--I've learned that dealing with an FAC requires that you be very responsive to comments and objections!) Thanks again for your support. BRMo 03:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the weasel word template

that you added to the ACLU page. I didnt even know that particular template existed. Any contributions you make to the page will be appreciated. Thanks. Jasper23 22:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Hey, I've been gone awhile. Is there anything I can do to help? --Pahoran513 00:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Salt Lake City edits

I'm going to have to protest some of your changes to the Salt Lake City article, and I've already reverted some of them. For one, the article is becoming bogged down with an unnessecarily large number of [citation needed] tags. Citations are great, but there's a huge number of them, and some of the things with a tag next to them don't really need citations. If we can find them, that's great, but I'm afraid that your excessive use of these tags and demanding of the citations will ultimately hurt the potential for Salt Lake City to become a featured article in the long run. Not to mention it's hard to find some of the info you're asking for, and also, since I have less time on my hands, and you can't do everything, this just delays the process.

Secondly, but not least, is your almost dictatorial removal of supposed weasel words and peacock terms (a term which I didn't know about until today). Certainly the inclusion of most of what you removed is not detrimental to the encyclopedia. Wikipedia has recently come under an insane number of rules and regulations to the point of you need citations for everything and the inclusion of even one weasel word or peacock term is detrimental to the encyclopedia, almost to the point of violating the standards of the English language. (Are there better terms to replace these weasel words with? Certainly the removal of some of these not only is detrimental to the writing quality, but are not even improving the encyclopedia. The inclusion of some weasel words is necessary to properly explain and display that piece of information.)

Sorry, I got a little off-track there, and it goes far beyond the scope of the article and your edits...I just had to bring it to your attention (and get a bit of frustration off my chest regarding this emerging Dictatorship of Wikipedia mentality.:P). bob rulz 00:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, you bring up good points, but I still have problems with some of them. For example, I don't think that citations are needed for what Rocky Anderson supports and doesn't support. It's hard to find citations on that, but it just doesn't really seem like something that would need verification. Some things could easily be removed (such as the comparison to Indiana roads, the fact that most of these Pacific Islanders are members of the LDS Church, although to be fair, outside of Utah, the Polynesian Islands have the highest rate of LDS membership, but it can still be removed) and the bit about the coincilors (which, I agree, is original research). I also do not believe that citations are needed to verify what the politics are centered on, as they are the key issues within the city and the state. Surely you've heard about the education and transportation problems in the city? And if you follow politics you should notice that the issues are heavily-addressed. Using the same argument as the Rocky Anderson argument I used above, I don't believe that a citation is necessary in this case. Any pure facts that are easily-verifiable and can't be verified should be removed. I also do not think public perception has a place in the encyclopedia, but I'm also under the belief that not all facts need verifying. Perhaps I'm just a little more lenient with the rules (some rules need to be flexible). bob rulz 01:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Today's featured article

Although there really isn't a "vote" and the type of support comments you and I made are less frequent now, they were quite frequent earlier (the last time I monitored TFA was last fall/winter around the time when the Early life of Joseph Smith, Jr. was feature on the 200th anniversary of his birth). I think it helps Raul654 to see that there are editors supporting an application to be today's featured article. The thing we need to be prepared for is that onslaught of edits (many of which are vandalism, but some of which will be very helpful to the article). The LOTR featured article had about 400 edits during the day it was featured and the average article will have about 200 or ~10 per hour, so diligence is necessary, especially for subtle vandalism that will not be detected by those who normally watch featured articles for vandalism (i.e. people adding something that sounds plausible). --Trödel 16:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I understand the frustration with the front page articles being locked, but there is both they symbolic help, and the useful edits made by those that are not "wikipedians" but know something about the subject matter. The best explanation of why TFA isn't protected is here: User:Raul654/protection --Trödel 01:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lakes & seas list

Hi, thanks for your note. I think since we have the List of world's largest lakes and List of lakes we're OK for Version 0.5, since for most topics we only have one or two lists. If we hadn't reached a long-term consensus I'd add it in for discussion, but I think it'd be a hassle trying to add it now long after nominations have closed. I hope that some of the articles excluded this time like Lake Geneva can be expanded and go on a set nomination for version 0.7, along with this extra list. Thanks, Walkerma 04:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LDS church

The POV being pushed is strictly the POV of the LDS church ... we all know that early church leaders were arrested for various crimes; that would be a good reason to move out of those jurisdictions. I will not sit by idly and allow the LDS church's POV to be used in these articles. Duke53 | Talk 22:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC) p.s If the baptism stuff is covered elsewhere I propose that the whole section be deleted.

[edit] Sugar House area

You could be thinking of somewhere north of 2100 South and east of 1300 East. That seems to me like the area that would fit that description the best. Garden something doesn't ring a bell though. bob rulz 23:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hey!

Hey, Lethargy! Just wanted to let you that I cited the trivia section in Orinoco Flow -- The Music of Enya as you requested. I also fixed your Google Earth userbox on your userpage for you (it had been moved due to the userbox migration). God bless! -- P.B. Pilhet / Talk 16:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Reply You're welcome, Lethargy! See you around (that's obviously just an expression)! -- P.B. Pilhet / Talk 20:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Just wanted to say thanks for all your work in the Latter Day Saint Wikiproject. I don't award barnstars, however, if I did, you'd be worthy of one. We may not always see eye to eye (few do with me), but your work is very much appreciated. -Visorstuff 03:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SLC photos

Regarding photos of Temple Square, I don't have any digital photos that would work very well. We'll probably visit the Square during the Christmas season this year, so I'll try to take some then. — Zaui (talk) 20:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] November 2006 Mormon Collaboration

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has been selected as the November Mormon collaboration of the month. I look forward to working with you on it. --uriah923(talk) 21:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Newbie question on sources

You posted "This article or section does not cite its references or sources" on an article recently. I'd love to comply but not sure how, as most of the info comes directly from the items themselves (in this case a product line of games and books from the 1980s and 90s from a publisher that no longe exists.) Many thanks. Jape77 23:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Provo, Utah

You changed LDS Church to a piped link LDS Church using AWB. Was that built into AWB or is it somethign you added yourself. WP has a policy of avoiding piped links, I believe the policy is to either change it to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (which there is already a link to), or leave it as is. Changing it to a piped link leads to the easter egg effect, which I believe is undesirable. Your change was reverted. McKay 15:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, you weren't stepping on my toes. This page isn't mine, and I didn't add that content. I just saw your edit, and it just didn't seem right, so I looked up the policy, and I will admit that the policy isn't extremely clear, so I decided to use my best judgement. (Based on my talk pages edit history, you also changed your mind on it too ;) )
I reference Easter Eggs because I think it does apply:
LDS Church and LDS Church are different soley in their 'Easter egg'ness. They both go to the same place, but in the former case, as it's a redirect, it takes you to the same pages as the latter, but it says "redirected from LDS Church" so you know that you were redirected. In the latter case, it's an easter egg, because the user might be thinking "Wait, I thought I was going to the LDS Church page, I thought this was about the church of the Liberal Democracy of Slovenia, where am I?" because now there is no reference that he got redirected.
I personally love using redirects when it applies. The WP page on redirects mentiones names in specific, Gates, Bill would appear neatly in a list of other people alphabetized by their last name. Who cares if it's a redirect, it doesn't really affect the users, (minor easteregging aside, and I will admit my example above of easteregging is contrived), and it makes editors' lives easier.
Yeah, unlinking it in this case is probably fine as well. McKay 22:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You helped choose Islam as this week's WP:AID winner

 Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive.
This week Islam was selected to be improved to featured article status.
Hope you can help.

Dev920 15:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mormon mysticism links

The ones I replaced weren't mine, and two of them were scholarly sources. --Tsuzuki26 00:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that you are acting in an uncivil manner. Please remain civil and don't resort to making personal attacks or instigating edit wars. "By affiliation I was referring to Duke's assertion that we are a cabal. As far as seeing the same pattern, please put your money where your mouth is and link to instances where "those voting to Delete are systematically deleting the article part by part already" Duke53 | Talk 08:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FamilySearch

Care to weigh in on the AfD for this article? -- 63.224.136.62 03:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You helped choose Rosetta Stone as this week's WP:AID winner

 Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive.
This week Rosetta Stone was selected to be improved to featured article status.
Hope you can help.

AzaBot 16:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Temples of CJC

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)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/e/t/User_talk%7ELethargy_d2b4.html"