User talk:Visorstuff/2004 Archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 LDS section on the Israelite article 2 Golden Plates Article Superfluity 3 Atonement 4 Nomination for Adminship 5 adminship 6 Joseph Smith image 7 B & V 8 Afterlife 9 unexplained revert 10 Early Joseph Smith 11 Mormonism and Christianity 12 Human (from front page) 13 Human 14 LDS STUBS 15 Proposal to make a Mormonism WikiProject 16 reformed Egyptian 17 Great quotes, V! 18 Community of Christ 19 Spam? 20 Images 21 Article Licensing 22 Anon LDS Editor

[edit] LDS section on the Israelite article

Danny has asked that I take a look at the LDS section on the Israelite article. I've made some revisions. Please review. The article on chosen people also needs an LDS perspective. B 19:25, Jan 2, 2004 (UTC)

---

[edit] Golden Plates Article Superfluity

I am not in a combative mood, but I probably need to understand better where all that information about the Golden Plates and the witnesses etc. should go. The Book of Mormon page and the BodM Controversies page are just so-oooooo touchy that I am hesitant to throw a bunch of "pro"-Mormon facts up there. Any thoughts? Hawstom 22:23, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)

There's going to be some overlap between the Golden Plates article and the "Book of Mormon Witnesses" article, but I can envision a Golden Plates page that focuses on the properties of the plates as told by witnesses (like size, contents, weight), and whether the plates are real or not, and a "witnesses" article that focuses on the witnesses, their motivations, etc., and whether or not they were trustworthy witnesses. COGDEN 04:31, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

See my response on Golden Plates. Visorstuff 08:22, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

---

[edit] Atonement

I've been much bothered for some time now that Atonement redirects to Sin. Maybe you can help me tackle this issue some time soon. Any thoughts on how to approach it? Maybe just start an "Atonement (Mormonism)" article. B 00:56, Jan 5, 2004 (UTC)

That's what I would do, but the people who moved the original material from Atonement to Sin might complain if Atonement is temporarily redirected to Atonement (Mormonism), so I would put a short disambiguating explanation in Atonement that links to both Sin and to Atonement (Mormonism). COGDEN 03:10, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I think that a disambiguating page with a little background on Atonement beliefs would be a great idea. I'm pretty overwhelmed with other projects this week (week of Jan 5), so I'll be of little help for a while. Will contribute as I can. Visorstuff 06:03, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

---

[edit] Nomination for Adminship

I nominated you. See here: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship B 15:18, Mar 5, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment. Interested to see what happens. We definately need more admins like Wesley and Mkmcconn in the religious area of that are not as extreme as some editors on the 'pedia. I think that their becoming admins (and hopefully mine) will help keep balance. -Visorstuff 19:41, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] adminship

Visorstuff, A concensus has been reached by your peers that you should be an admin. I have made it so. Please review Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list and keep up the great work. Sincerely, Kingturtle 16:34, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thanks-Visorstuff 19:45, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Joseph Smith image

Would it be bad to include the painted portrait of Joseph Smith along with the photograph on the Joseph Smith page? Benefits I see include:

• Promote the understanding among JS adherents that the likeness of Joseph Smith is not a matter of mystery. Having two separate images would bear witness.
• Promote the understanding among Latter Day Saints that the likeness of JS was as shown in the photograh and portrait.
• Give a nod to the fact that in 1840, painted portraits were still the preferred mode of likeness representation.

Would it be worthwhile to have a section in the JS article on the Likeness or Appearance of Joseph Smith? I think the subject of the popular loss of the JS likeness is a most interesting one. Why does the LDS populace, including artists, fail to use his true likeness? Is it not handsome enough? Is it too beady-eyed for their tastes? Is it not enough like the death mask? I cc'd these remarks and questions to the article talk. Tom 18:24, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You'd find the book published about five years ago about the lost appearance of Joseph Smith interesting. Blonde hair, blue eyes, thin but strong very interesting. I think worth including his both the d-type and the available shadow-graph in the legion uniform (where he looks stocky from the side because of how it was produced) would be good to include. -Visorstuff 23:48, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree should include both. Very curious about that description. The Smith family painting has his hair light to medium brown. Contemporaries put his weight quite high, around 200 to 220 lb--not thin. Tom 05:37, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

A couple of items.

1. There hasn't been any response from Cookiecaper. I'm afraid your concerns about copyright on those JS images are valid. Do we need to remove them?
2. I found a very interesting web page [1] that appears to have a bunch of early renditions of JS. It is possible many of them were based on a single source, but I appreciate especially the early ones by Bathsheba Smith, S. Maudsley, and John C. Bennett. It appears they are contemporary drawings.
3. I would be interested to see a computer model done. My guess is that a combination of the daguerrotype, the Bathsheba Smith 1843, the Smith family coloring, and the "Brother" Rogers 1856, as modified for temperament as in the Benj J. Ferris 1854 (apparently based on the mocking(?) cartoon at [2] March 1844), would give the best rendition.

Tom 05:37, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

[edit] B & V

Hey buddy, just checking in. My editing participation seems to be cyclical. I'm curious about the "Visorstuff" nickname. Anything to do with the "Handspring Visor"? I make good use of my own Handspring Visor Platinum with a mobile phone adapter plugged into it. B 01:00, May 7, 2004 (UTC)

Very perceptive. I had a website in another life that reviewed and linked together free software that was made or worked well with the Visor and Macintosh systems. It didn't last long. I was disappointed in the adoption of Springboard technology, along with all the rest of the buyers of the Visor Deluxe. Funny thing is, now I use a Sonie Clie, and, although I still have an iMac, I primarily use my work Thinkpad 740. I feel like a traitor. :-) I like the name, and have kept it.

It is nice to have you back editing. I've slowed down because of my work situation (so busy now) and not having the time to really do many edits. The other LDS editors do a good job, but don't seem to inspire me to do much more than what I'm doing. You are more my type of editor - I am comfortable with your edits. Although the edits from the more liberally-sharing LDS folks are correct in most cases, I disagree with the context and how things are shared by some of them. I guess it's good in the long-run, but it's like sanding me with 50 grit paper - makes me uncomfortable. I don't like to disagree with them, so for the most part I bite my lip and make sure things are factually correct. Since I'm moving from Mesa to Avondale (like a lot of other members in Mesa), I may have a bit more time to edit. We'll see! Good to have you back around, hope you stay longer in this cycle.... -Visorstuff 14:16, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

I share your time-constraints...and sentiments especially about the liberal-LDS edits. Since COGDEN, for example, has added lots of content, I've felt it would help move the LDS-part of wikedia along to let him go gangbusters as long as he is willing rather than challenge him at every POV that I feel needs some NPOV'g....that can be done later. Why are LDS moving to Avondale?! I grew up near Baseline/Harris and went to GHS '88...lots of LDS in that Mesa-Gilbert-Chandler area...I have relatives on the Mesa/AJ side and school friends further south toward Higley. I love my Platinum since I got it a couple years ago...I hope it lasts a couple more...bought a compactflash memory adapter for it from a vendor in Mesa. B 15:45, May 7, 2004 (UTC)

I think Hawstom is a Mesa-ite as well. I love it here - although I miss the mountains of Utah Valley. I live in the Lehi area of Mesa - Country Club/Mesa and McKellips, but the area is getting worse and worse. My wife is sick of the police helicopters flying over. Avondale is a growing area. It seems the LDS population that has family ties to the east side are going farther and farther east (Queen Creek/Higley) and those who don't, or are younger, or work in Phoenix are going to Avondale/West side. Plus home prices are much less expensive in the growing West valley than other areas of the valley. We are getting more than double the square footage for about 100 bucks more a month. It is hard to pass off. We have a lot of friends who are moving out there as well. Interesting migration for sure. We'll be moving into a ward about to split (600+ members) that is about 15 minutes from our house for now. My wife was a GHS grad in '91, I bet you knew her older sister(s). We'll have to catch up on that via email on that sometime. How often do you come back into AZ? You share my exact sentiments about COGDEN's edits. He is good and knowledgeable and has made good contributions, but sometimes I wonder about why he is such a fan of controversial authors and subjects. Not that it is bad to study from time to time, but too much focus on them and you end up becoming weird or feel alienated. -Visorstuff 22:40, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

I sent you an email through wikipedia. If you've disabled your email in your wikipedia preferences, please send me an email message with your email address through wikipedia...I've just now enabled it for that purpose. B 23:34, May 7, 2004 (UTC)

Just responded to your email - you can disable email in wikipedia now. :-). -Visorstuff 00:36, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Afterlife

V, a strong spiritual interest in Afterlife has been stirring within me for several months, and I feel a desire to do some large-scale organization of Articles about Afterlife. I remember that you started Articles about Mormonism, and I wonder if you could tell me how the progression of the article went, and any hints you gleaned in building and maintaining it.

• Did it start as a user page? Then went to what? And now it is a regular article?
• How did you find all the pages to include? What an impressive list it is!

Thanks. Tom (hawstom) 20:15, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Great Question, I wish I knew... :-) I've created them for Scientology and am still compiling one for Catholicism. Others are planned and in the works, but are tabled now because of other projects I'm working on. "List of articles" pages are fun to create and monitor, but crazy to put together.

I actually started from my own Watchlist - I started using the search feature of Wikipedia/Google to find as many pages as I could and then looked to see what linked to those pages by the "What links here" link to the left and added them to my watch list. After your watchlist gets big enough with those type of pages, you have to copy and paste them into another application to categorize and format them (and weed out all the irrelevant stuff from your watch page...). Then I categorized each page into different sections that seemed like they fit (people, places, doctrines, etc.). This is where I actually pulled them into Excel to categorize them and then pasted into Word or Notepad and did a find and replace to get all the formatting and linking standards correct and posted.

I know I'm missing a bunch of articles in the lists I've created, but they are pretty comprehensive lists.

Incidentally, what part of Mesa do you live in? I'm getting ready to migrate to Avondale from the Lehi area of Mesa...

For some additional afterlife references you may want to check out www.earlychristianwritings.com, gnosis.org, www.pantheon.org, www.eh.sc.edu, www.themystica.org, www.ccel.org (and http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/encyc/encyc13/htm/TOC.htm), and www.sacred-texts.com. Good stuff. -Visorstuff 00:22, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] unexplained revert

I've changed Book of Abraham again. I cannot address whatever concern of yours caused you to revert it, as you made no explanation. I believe the current version is accurate: if you do not think so, please try to leave some clue as to why? - Nunh-huh 01:30, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, i just hit the revert button on my admin page - I agree i shoudl ahve given an explanation.

The isssue is that the facimilies were never part of the translation process of the book of abraham. They were published prior to him starting the translation and were not part of the book of abraham. They were with the mummy, but not part of the papyrus proper used in translation. I have photos of the papryrus used in church archives, and the papyrus contained many pages, most of which were not used in the translation of the book of abraham. The facimilies were like side notes. The hypocephalus was udner the mummies head, others were part of a scroll, others loose fragements. parts of the facimilies were translated, but appear as part of the times and seasons in the Pearl of Great price, not text of the book of abraham. They were part of the papyrus, but are NOT part of the book of abraham as translated by smith. The institute manual on history of the Church, or the actual history of the church gives a detailed description on translation process. I may seem like I'm splitting hairs, but one of my campaigns here is to give the correct historical and doctrinal facts per church history. -Visorstuff 03:28, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

But you are presenting your view as an undisputed viewpoint, and it is not. It has been argued that figures from Papyrus Joseph Smith IX (the "Small Sensen" text) were used to fill in portions of the hydrocephalus that are missing in Smith's reproduction of the hydrocephlus in his "Grammar" material, and I believe that most people believe the facsimiles are indeed considered an inspired portion of the Book of Abraham as published. - Nunh-huh 03:56, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Same issues here. Pictures were not used as basis for text. The text portions of the scrolls were used for text. The illustrations were used and published seperately. Too much evidence to the contrary of your viewpoint. -Visorstuff 23:44, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Early Joseph Smith

At Mormonism and Christianity, can you verify the factual accuracy of the introductory statement that the uneasy relationship between Mormonism and traditional Christianity began (at J.S. age 14) with folk magic practice? I am trying to see things from that POV, but I lack the sources and the background to really understand. If you can verify, can you think of a reference that can be quoted (something primary like Lucy Mack Smith, Martin Harris, or another Palmyra contemporary). Thanks for your trouble. Tom 21:20, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've done some editing of the paragraphs. See the talk page for my real "folk magic" concerns. I disagree with the research methodology and findings done by the one historian who has made claims, advanced theories and published work on the matter. -Visorstuff 23:41, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, thanks for taking this issue by the horns. Tom 20:26, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Visor, I need your counsel. You may have read my comments on the JS talk page regarding my discouragement of the inclusion of tidbits of information without providing context or explanation. Particularly COgden's insistence in adding the statment that the Smith family was "warned out of" a town. When context is not provided or further explanation, I find the result to be tabloid jouranlism and/or rank anti-Mormonism. Am I off base or do you think simply adding facts without explanation is appropriate? That is not meant to be a loaded question, just a relection of adamant position. Storm Rider 01:23, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mormonism and Christianity

I have been discussing that article in earnest with Mkmcconn, and I really feel like we have make significant progress toward resolving his concerns. I jotted down my summary of understanding, and nobody seems to have objected to it, at the very bottom of the Talk:Mormonism and Christianity. Does that mean we should head in that direction? Tom

Also, I asked Community of Christ a bit about their own POV on classification and trinitarianism. Here is what I have received so far from their reps:

"The church has no official statement regarding the Godhead, but in essence the church is Trinitarian. The trinity is a mystery which escapes clear articulation in that it is an attempt to describe (or define) the infinite * which is beyond definitions. It might be said that the church believes in the three in ONE, not THREE in one! One God expressed or experienced in three modalities: God * the creator; God * the sustainer; God * the incarnate." Tom

Also, "We prefer to be classified as 'Restoration Movement'" This doesn't quite fit our current scheme, and doesn't account for the Campbellite type restoration movement either. I'm following up with them. Thought you might want to know. Tom 20:21, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Human (from front page)

Hey, V. Have you seen the human page? Wow! It is funny. Species status: secure ROTFL Any ideas? Tom 23:46, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Human

V, I put a NPOV dispute at human. I just now made an NPOV resolution change. There is quite a bit of resistance there from the guys who think NPOV means Scientific POV. You might jump over (my edits will probably not last long) and opine. Thanks beforehand. Tom 21:01, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Looks like you've just been mostly lurking at Human. I have a short favor to ask of you. The discussion is getting strong, and I think it would help to lay our cards on the talbe so the "secularists" can see just how different is our point of view on just what is a human. But at the same time, I want to be able to get a "generic" (ha ha) religious view. In any case, would you take some time to drop by my user talk and add your personally believed factual definition of what is a human. I appreciate it. Tom - Talk 22:43, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. But even so, your personally believed factual definition of humans would be helpful to the effort, I think. Could you put it on the list? Tom - Talk 06:08, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] LDS STUBS

Hi Visorstuff,

I just wanted to drop in to let you know that I've just finished the template Template:LDS-stub. It should make it easier to find topics on Mormonism that need to be expanded. You can use the template in your editing by entering {{LDS-stub}}. I hope you will. Pass it on if you see anybody I've missed. ;) Thanks. Cookiecaper 03:28, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't respond directly to this at the time. This was a much-needed tool and has helped immensely in making the editing process easier. THANK-YOU Cookiecaper!

[edit] Proposal to make a Mormonism WikiProject

I'd like to discover if there would be community support for a Mormonism WikiProject. I think it would offer several advantages to our current decentralized approach. Please comment.

See Talk:Joseph Smith, Jr.#Propose we make a Mormonism WikiProject — Cool Hand Luke 18:11, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I went ahead and made the WikiProject under Wikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement. I hope the project will be useful to editors looking for work to do. To this end I've compiled a list of red links and short Latter Day Saint articles not listed as LDS stubs. Cool Hand Luke 18:52, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation to join said project. I must admit to being in two minds: I'm not LDS myself (as you correctly surmised), and not knowledgeable on the subject either; so if I 'join', I'm unlikely to be making any major contributions as such, but rather just what I've been doing so far: questioning style, POV, consistency, reverting obvious tom-foolery, and making a general pedantic nuisance of myself. Alai 20:02, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] reformed Egyptian

I would appreciate your two cents at Reformed Egyptian. We are having an NPOV workshop. Tom - Talk 16:48, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thank you so much for helping out. Nauvoo keeps saying "there is no such language." And I keep answering, "Of course that is true." But maybe I am off base. I am thinking of the statement that The Book of Mormon (another question :-D) is written in "the characters that are called among us the reformed Egyptian". Does this denote a language? Maybe so and maybe not. But when Nauvoo started playing the "no such language" game, I dialogued by saying, "Well, you're right, and we Mormons agree with you." But maybe I have done wrong and caused obfuscation by doing so. Maybe I should have said right off the bat, "Nauvoo, what you are really saying is that there is no such thing as ancient Book of Mormon people and writing, right? And you want to be sure the article is fairly neutral on that, right?" Maybe I owe Nauvoo an apology and an attempt to get the discussion back on track. What do you think? Tom - Talk 22:47, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't think he's saying there is no such language and meaning just that - I think he is saying there is no support that it exists, aside from the mention in the book of mormon and the anthon transcript. For most people, this wouldn't be enough to base a theory on, so it cannot reach the hypothisis stage, and cannot be supported. Hence the reason for my "empirical method" comments. I think adding that back in will satisfy his objections. I see no need for an apology when you differ in your opinions, if you argued, then that is another thing, but I see no temper in your writing.

Incidentally, am i helping the process (and the Latter Day Saint Movement Project with my comments? I'd rather guide the discussions, rather than get too involved and upset in edit wars. I cannot believe how many misperceptions there are of the doctrines by the various folks that edit - it is frustrating that no matter how often the Twelve correct doctrinal misperceptions, they are still perpetuated. By offering comment, etc, I feel my expertise in policy, doctrines and history can best be served in this way, but often feel like I'm butting in or slowing things down. Thoughts? -Visorstuff 00:16, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I certainly appreciate your input and guidance. It's a nice little article, and I'd like to see this dispute behind it. Cool Hand Luke 08:17, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

From my point of view, your input is important because we sometimes need lots of perspectives earnestly involved to arrive at a satisfactory solution to some NPOV challenges. Thankfully, I have never personally seen an edit war in spite of struggling through some very tough challenges on talk pages. Your personal involvement is important (though of course we don't want you to get upset), and "guiding the discussion" would probably amount to less participation (input) than at least I personally had hoped you would give. These kind-spirited and sincere efforts do us good, make us better editors, and further the Wikipedia if we don't get upset at each other (or at least make up when necessary :-D). Of course, you are kind of the father of the Latter Day Saint project/area/corner, so we do need your guidance as to matters of consistent style and article organization. Tom - Talk 16:50, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You are making my head grow! :^) - By guiding (didn't mean to sound so cocky), I do not mean I will stop editing. There is just too many Mormonism articles to properly tackle - and by "guiding" I hope to be able to correct where needed - that includes introducing new articles requested on the project page. Things have changed quite a bit in the past year - I still consider User:BoNoMoJo the father of this corner or wikipedia, although he has had some drastic cuts in editng as of late (which I hope to not repeat the dropping off/re-appearing, although I totally understand the time crunch). I think I would do better if people requested that I create specific articles. I could be as cocky as my edit above sounded and "share the knowledge," so to speak. -Visorstuff 00:32, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Great quotes, V!

I like 'em. By the way, I added a little list of Latter Day Saint Wikipedians at my user page. Did you realize Frecklefoot has been here since 2002 and has over 8500 edits?! Wow! Tom - Talk 22:45, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

Frecklefoot used to be a heavy contributor to Mormonism topics. Things died down for him in the Mormonism arena about the time Cogden joined - and he began to focus on other topics of interest to him. Some of it may have been my fault in a discussion about Outer Darkness (see Talk:Outer_Darkness for the ending of the discussion that spanned over multiple article's talk pages and got quite heated). He is a great editor, wish he were more active in the project. -Visorstuff 16:34, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

We all say things we wish we hadn't. I'm glad I've seen him again a bit. Good feeling (wikilove) is so important. Tom - Talk 22:44, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

I took a closer look at Talk:Outer_Darkness. I am very sorry Frecklefoot ended up alienated, as I can see you are. I think I can follow the explanations you were trying to present. I think they all make sense, and I think you have a correct understanding of the different terms in front of the meanings. Tom - Talk

I may have a clue where the Common Mormon Markup Language (nice invention) Outer Darkness came from. I found it and certain other modern phrases and concepts we take as givens in the Readings given by Edgar Cayce. I wonder if his Readings (or writings on his Readings) were picked up on by Latter-day Saints and certain concepts struck such a chord of recognition (In the "We accept truth from any quarter" tradition) that they were received into the lore. There are certain truths accepted in Mormonism that are rejected by nearly all other faiths that I think are fundamentally real and strike spiritual chords of belief in investigators. Some of these are our emphasis on calling God "Father", our primary emphasis on "I am a Child of God", acceptance of pre-earth life, continuum of states of glory in the afterlife, same spirit then as now (Alma 34), personal revelation, and afterlife spirit visitations or visions. Just a rambling thought. Tom - Talk

It is interesting to me how most LDS in 2004 seem to be increasingly closed to the implications of Article of Faith 9 "We believe all that God has revealed". So much for wishing all the Lord's people were prophets and young and old men of all flesh (?) seeing visions and dreaming dreams. Tom - Talk 21:40, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Community of Christ

Thanks for the news. It reminds me of what I used to hear a lot when I was a child: "Don't set your sights on the leaders; they can fall. Set your sights on Jesus Christ." I need to remember to tell my kids that a lot: Follow Jesus first. By the way, see previous section. Tom - Talk 21:19, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Spam?

Please do not add commercial links (or links to your own private websites) to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. You are, however, encouraged to add content instead of links to the encyclopedia. See the welcome page to learn more. Thanks. 210.54.65.3 01:16, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The message above intrigues me. It obviously ignore your history with Wikipedia. But I am concerned about the repetition of the LDS links across several articles. Shouldn't we identify an "as-needed" application of the links so as not to be spammy? Is that perhaps what the message above is about? In your view of the Mormonism corner, which articles should have links to which sites? Tom - Talk 09:16, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

I'm as baffled as you are - I left the following message for User:210.54.65.3:

You left me a note on my talk page about spam, and external links. Being a Wikipedian for about two years and as an admin, I am well aware of "what Wikipedia is," but as always appreciate the reminder. However, I have no idea what you are referencing. Please cite a page or a problem in order for me to fix it. There was a case in the past week where I reverted changes to someone's removal of external links, because they were being used as a resource. But that was only a handful of external links. Please clarify. -Visorstuff 19:56, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I will also post this here - I have no idea what this editor is referring to. Please clarify Mr./Ms. Anon.

-Time Delay Source of complaint found-

During this edit - I found the source of complaint - I belive - [of a 3 December 2004 revert to "Mormon"]. Again, in this case, I was reverting a major deletion of content that was unexplained, and frankly had no purpose in deletion. I agree that those links should be more appropriately assigned to particular pages, but am curious about what the point of contention is 210. However, if you are familiar with Wikipedia, you'll figure out the reasons for the revert, and if you saw that I made the changes, you'll also see that they were a revert and that I was not the primary source for those links.

210 - I would have appreciated a note rather than a generic message addressing your concerns. I am a bit taken back that you do not take into account either my history with Wikipedia or the context of the revert, and I am suprised that you've left an anonymouse message, so I cannot respond to you. In NO way was that advertising for the LDS Church - by reverting a strange anonymous edit without context.

On another note, I agree that there are multiple links that could be condensed and appropriately placed. Hawstom, I have some projects going on this week - can you bring up on the Project page? Feel free to referece this exchange. -Visorstuff 19:56, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Images

Hey, I was wondering if you ever heard from user:cookiecaper(cc) about the the copyright issue for his images mentioned here above and at cc's talk page, from what I read, I didn't see any resolution, but noted that images in question were still in place. Anyway, this is regarding this picture,

which cc asserted fair use. After seeing that, and noting a nonexistent Bednar article (soon to be stub), I went about procuring an image for Bednar by the same method, but reading rights and use info], it states:

You may not post material from this site on another web site or on a computer network without our permission.

So, perhaps you could enlighten me, and if not, I will just have to read up on fair use. User:Moogle 8 December 2004

[edit] Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

• Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
• Multi-Licensing Guide
• Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

[edit] Anon LDS Editor

I went through all anon's contributions. Most are good, I think. I restored and removed some content (not that I'm sure it was removed by this anon) such as re: missionary pay and the temple new name disclosure to groom. Regarding temple, I think that some of the content ought to stay off. Here's why: The primary constituency of the Mormonism articles is always going to be Mormons. That's just how it is. And some of that info apparently is offensive to many Mormons. It is a useless crusade for anybody to try to keep content up that offends the Mormons. Wikilove and wikiquette say, leave it off. It's just like my desire to have the brethren in my ward choir sing Silent Night in German with a guitar for Christmas in Sacrament Meeting. It isn't against any rules (any more); it is reverent, simple, sweet, gentle, and the meaning is intuitive. But if it offends the Mormons, why do it? If they all leave, who will be left at church? Catholics? Not likely! I say, let them remove it if you can see your way to believing it would be generally offensive to your ward, quorum, or family. One other consideration. The intentional design of the endowment appears to include the concept of anticipation. I don't know that this is how it has to be, but it just seems wrong to Mormons for their kids to receive the endowment on Wikipedia. Again, I am not sure we couldn't be just as happy memorizing our endowment before actually receiving it, but that is not how we look at it today. If you can't beat them, join them. Tom - Talk 23:39, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)