User talk:ARTEST4ECHO/Archive/2011

__NOINDEX__

Template:LDSproject
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement. 208.81.184.4 (talk) 17:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC) (Using )

out of LDS scope?
So, someone who is a LDS scholar isn't part of the LDS project? Likewise, some guy who wrote "The Book of Mormon Movie, Vol. 1: The Journey" isn't? Some projects include anything that is tangentially related; I'm trying to understand what the LDSProject scope is. tedder (talk) 05:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Just being LDS doesn’t make it related to the LDS project. The scope of the LDS project is "elements of the Latter Day Saint movement, Mormonism, Latter Day Saint history, doctrine, practices, and other cultural effects inspired by Joseph Smith, Jr."  This is the same thing with someone like Gladys Knight or John C. Swensen.  Yes, they are both LDS but their notability has nothing to do with the LDS movement, it has to do with her singing and his being dean of the college division of BYU.


 * I removed Robert K. Thomas (BYU) and put him into BYU, since he is notable for being at BYU, hence Robert K. Thomas (BYU) and not Robert K. Thomas (Mormon). If just being BYU faculty put you into the LDS project all 320 would be.  I just going by what is in the Robert K. Thomas, I can't see how he is within the LDS scope, but you may know him better.


 * I removed Craig Clyde and put him in film since he is notable for being an actor, screenplay writer, and film director. I honestly didn't realize that Craig Clyde was part of The Book of Mormon Movie, Vol. 1: The Journey, so I can see how he could fall under the "cultural effects' scope, but that is a stretch, since that would put anyone who worked on that movie in the LDS scope.


 * It really comes down to notably. What are they notable for?  However, I will admit I don't know these men very well, and will admit I may be wrong.  However, I was only going by what is in the articles themselves.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 13:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, ARTEST. tedder (talk) 14:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, I will admit I don't know these men very well, and will admit I may be wrong. If you put them back, I will differ to your knowledge, so in I wont take them back out.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 14:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Nah, no worries by me. But it's good to know the LDS project doesn't want someone just because they are LDS; other projects handle this differently, so when I'm adding projects I'll try to remember that. tedder (talk) 14:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think this originally came up because the WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement isn't just about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Yes, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is part of the Latter Day Saint movement, but it isn't the only focus of the WikiProject.  As people who happen to be LDS got added the project became unmanageable.  If your going threw just the 1,592 American Latter Day Saints where do you start when there are only 89 members of the WikiProject.
 * As to "projects handle this differently", I'm not so sure of that ether. For example, JFK isn't in the WikiProject Catholicism, and his being a catholic was an issue in the day.  Just being catholic doesn’t put you into the Catholicism WikiProject.  However, I'm not part of those projects, so I don't know how they do things.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 15:07, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * My experience isn't with the religious-based projects. Projects like WPBIO, WPOregon, WPMILHIST, and even WPBYU work in a different manner- they take people and articles that have even very weak relationships to the project. It's okay- I'm not trying to argue that it should or shouldn't be a certain way- just trying to understand. tedder (talk) 17:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think your trying to argue.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 18:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Recent changes to LDS-themed articles
Thanks so much for the recent changes you made to the articles Mormonism and Islam, James Strang and Church of Jesus Christ (Cutlerite). The changes were well-reasoned, and addressed an issue I hadn't even thought of when I was composing those sections. Thanks for picking that up! Cheers and Shalom! - Ecjmartin (talk) 23:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Your welcome. When I make changes like this I expect to get nasty e-mails, so when the "You and have message" things pops up, it always give me a heart attack.  It was nice to get a nice one instead.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 13:38, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Also - thank you for finding a couple more temple pictures -- Trödel 21:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I was looking for photo of those on List of members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (LDS Church), but have run out pending permission from the copyright holders, so I thought I would see if I couldn't find some temples.  I'm glad I found a few.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 22:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

A. Latham Staples
While I understand the standardization in regards to LDS vs. Mormon, what you changed there was a quote. Quotes don't get changed.Naraht (talk) 02:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry I failed to realize it was a quote. Thanks for the catch.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 13:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

List of historic sites of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
I am glad you have decided to ask for help on this list, and I am happy to offer my advice. Here are some problems with the list. Who decides whether a particular site is "historic" enough to be on this list? You? Me? The LSD hierarchy? WP tends to avoid lists with no clear inclusion criteria. For historic sites, at good place to start is to look at Wikiproject Historic Sites. The people in this Wikiproject do excellent work making sure that we have articles in historic sites around that world that are part of a heritage register, of one kind or another (government-run or created by private charities). This is key. It is not up to WP editors to decide what is or isn't a historic site, so we must rely on reliable outside sources, which in the case of historic sites means heritage registers. Now you've said that most of the properties on your list on on the US NRHP. If so, please indicate that on the list by providing sources. You could very easily turn this into an excellent and useful list by defining the inclusion criteria as "sites related to the LDS Church which are on a heritage register" and then by clearly indicating in your tables on which heritage register(s) (often more that one) the site is listed. And be sure to look outside the single source that you are using now (the LDS.org website) as they have clearly missed the fact that the Cardston Alberta Temple is a National Historic Site of Canada, for example. I hope this helps. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 06:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I get all that. It's the Notablity issue I'm confused on.  Why is it that your saying that they are not notable?--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 13:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd like to chime in with an example here that may help straighten things out: The "Sacred Grove". While any member of the CoJCoLDS would agree that the Sacred Grove is a site which is a key part of the history of the Church, given that it's exact location isn't known, the standard 3rd party lists like the US NRHP and the National Historical Site of Canada aren't going to include it on a Historic Site list. It might be possible to find a 3rd party source that would list the important historic sites of the Latter Day Saints, however. In addition, I also have significant NPOV issues with the list as currently done. There is no way that as minor a location as the New Zealand Temple Visitors' Center belongs on the list without the list also including the Mountain Meadows Historic Site. I appreciate that the church isn't going to list it at http://lds.org/placestovisit/eng/, but that won't fly on Wikipedia. The only comparison that I can make is listing important sites in the history of Union Carbide without listing Bhopal. (Possible COI statement, my wife is LDS)Naraht (talk) 14:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Quite simply, we assume that something is non-notable unless reliable third party sources say that it is notable. You haven't quoted any sources which assert that the sites you have selected to be on your list are actually the most important in the history of Mormonism/LDSism. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 17:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I’m sorry I have been working on something else. I will be getting to this page soon.  I don't think there is going to be an issue finding "Third Party" sources for the historic sites.  There are hundreds of both Pro and anti-Mormon writes that discuses these sites.  Many of them are on NRHP and the National Historical Site of Canada and those that aren't have books and newspaper articles about them.
 * As to NPOV. I agree that the list doesn’t clearly define who decides if a particular site is "historic" enough to be on this list?  I think that this issue is clouding what you view NOPV.  Per wp:MOSLDS article that use “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” are by definition about ‘’’ONLY’’’, “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints”.  You said “…historic sites of the Latter Day Saints”, and refer to CoC.  They have no say in “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints”, so if “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” says this is located “here” or is historic, then the issue become finding a third party source, not that some other church says it’s not important, since it is historic to “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints”,  I think once it is made clear what constitutes historic, then I think the NPOV thing should solve itself.  Since I think the intent of this list (I didn’t create it) was to List of historic sites that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints considers “Historic”.  Once that is addressed then the article will become NOPV.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 20:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Tampico Temple
Sure I can get over there to take a photo - probably tomorrow (Weds. 9th March) or this week. Leave it with me. Eddie.willers (talk) 20:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That would be fabulous!--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 20:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Photo added today - there was painting work going on and this was the best pic I could get in the time I had - hope it's OK. Eddie.willers (talk) 02:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much! I was a very annoying that this temple that has been operating for so long didn't have a photo.  I understand the new ones and the ones that or the ones under construction, but not one that have been operating for 11 years.  If you ever need something photographed in Arkansas, let me know.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 16:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for updating my temple picture page
I went to it the temple picture page over the weekend - I don't remember adding the latest temples, but thought, "I must have." Fortunately I checked the history today and saw that you did it. Feel free to do that anytime. -- Trödel 23:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I was worried you might be offended that I updated User:Trödel/Sandbox4 since it is, after all, your page. It's just that I found the page very helpful figuring out which temples were missing images. --ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 13:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That's why I created it - glad it could be some help to you -- Trödel 16:27, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * A side question, Is the "Oquirrh Mountain Utah" temple photo showing up on your browser? It isn’t on mine.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 19:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I had noticed that recently - not sure what is causing it but I've seen weird image problems before with odd sized images - I changed to to 136px from 137px and it fixed the problem for me - can you see all the images now? -- Trödel 22:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I can see it now. Thanks--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 13:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Use of the term Mormon church
Hey there - in an attempt to avoid an edit war... I have read the LDS MOS, and it does not preclude using the term "Mormon chuch" to add clarification and context for the reader. See for example The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or Joseph Smith, Jr.. In those articles, the official name of the church is given, but for those that aren't familiar with it, some clarification is given so they can make the connection to the widespread use of the term "Mormon". This is perfectly appropriate and done on hundreds of Mormon related articles. --Descartes1979 (talk) 17:10, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I’m sorry but it is not done on "hundreds of Mormon related articles". If you looked at Search "Mormon Church", except of the term "and colloquially referred to as the Mormon Church" at The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the term "Mormon Church" is only used as "Redirects" and within Direct Quotes and Reference (such as book title).  Since, Mormon Church applies to a large number of other sect in the Latter day Saint movement, the term "Mormon Church" is inappropriate unless your referring to all sects.  I don't see why this partial article should be an "Exception" to the MOS and Naming convention.  Additionally Joseph Smith, Jr. only uses it in references as it relates to a book title.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 17:17, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Discussion moved to Talk:The Family: A Proclamation to the World

Chilean coins
If there is any doubt about its legal status, please proceed to erase those files as soon as possible. Thank you!B25es ( talk ) 16:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not an admin, all I can do is add the copyvio tag and let an admin delete it, which is what I did. However, thank you for being understanding.--ARTEST4ECHO talk 16:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

PD-LV
All of the coins are issued after Jauary 1, 1941. Shouldn't they be in PD-LV ?
 * NO. Per Commons:Currency#Latvia and List of countries' copyright length, coins and banknotes from Latvia printed/made before Jauary 1, 1941 are copyrighted.  PD-LV dose not apply to Latvian currency. See Latvian copyright law, Chapter IV, section 171. Bank of Latvia English copyright statement Latvian statement--ARTEST4ECHO talk 19:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Why did you put this date in the message to me than? Why is it important? UrSuS ( talk ) 00:27, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * My sincere apologies. It should read “after January 1, 1941.   I really screwed that up.  Any coin after 1941 is copyrighted.  Any before 1941 is PD-old “per Art. 37(2), Copyright Law of 6 April 2000”.  I'm sorry for the confusion.
 * However, there may be hope. I have been reading and re-reading Latvian Banknote copyright law, and I’m not 100% convinced that the way Wikipedia has written it is correct.  However, all we can go by is Commons:Currency.  It may not seem like it, but I really don’t want to delete all these images, so I have made comments here Commons_talk:Currency#Latvia_Banknotes_and_coins.  However, I haven’t had anyone response.  I also asked at the Copyright help desk.  No luck.--ARTEST4ECHO talk 12:08, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Taggins of copyrighted coins
Hi ARTEST4ECHO. Thanks for your work on tagging copyrighted coins. However, due to the reluctance of deletion, preference for deletion requests, and potential mistakes, I would advice you to create mass DRs grouped by region (such as coins of Latvia). You don't have to go back to the other ones you already tagged, I will try to take care of those. Thanks! -- ZooFari 19:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I will admit coins of Latvia was a large group, and you are perfectly entitled to move them to a deletion requests. However, I have never had a "reluctance of deletion" for these types of requests.  Over the last few months I have been going threw and been tagged all the images that fall under Commons:Currency that are copyvios and have only once (prior to your comment) had anyone (admin or otherwise) question the copyvio tag and in the end even those 10 or so images ended up deleted along with all the others.   Commons:Currency clearly spell out which are definitely copyvios.--ARTEST4ECHO talk 19:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but mass deletion of a particular subject can be scary anyways. But in case there is a problem, using a DR can preserve a listing. I'm not saying there's any problem with the taggings, just that some are heavily used and some people don't like admins mass deleting in such a way. Changing to DR is not difficult so I'll be doing that in the next few minutes. I'll give you the links shortly in case you want to add to the listings. -- ZooFari 19:16, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, that's fine and I'm not going to worry about it being moved to a DR. Please do give me the link to the listing..--ARTEST4ECHO talk 19:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's for Latvia: Commons:Deletion requests/Currency of Latvia... -- ZooFari 19:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Commons:Deletion requests/Coins of Malta, Commons:Deletion requests/Banknotes of Vietnam. -- ZooFari 22:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Temple Pictures
Thanks, once again, for your efforts in finding temple pictures! -- Trödel 16:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Toomanylinks
Not sure It's tough to say what to do in cases like this. There's always the option of using Dmoz:, but that won't necessarily give users access to every sect's homepage. If you feel okay about the external links section, then feel free to remove the tag, but just know that other users are like me&mdash;if they see an external links section that is more than a half-dozen or so long, that seems like too much. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I have updated the List of sects in the Latter Day Saint movementto use the Dmoz tag and removed those links already on the DMOZ page. I have also [suggested] the URL's not already on the list.  Once they are added, I will remove what I can.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 21:26, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for your message today, and for your additions of photo and refs to the Hancock articles!! I deeply appreciated that, and also your message (which i answered on my talk page, btw!)! - Ecjmartin (talk) 17:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I posted a reply to your latest message on my talk page. Thanks so much for your comments! - Ecjmartin (talk) 19:57, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Hedrickites
You might try perusing what pages are available on Amazon for Bringhurst and Hamer's Scattering of the Saints: Schism within Mormonism. (Btw, since Restoration Studies journal editor John C. Hamer is also a Wikipedian, he can perhaps be e-mailed through his user page.)--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 23:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks very very much.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 23:45, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I posted a reply to your query on the template page; scope it out and see if any of it helps with the questions you've asked. If not, let me know, and I'll try to get you more information.  I studied those guys for a few years "back in the day," and while I don't claim to be nearly as knowledgable as John (Hamer), I would be glad to help in any way that I can...  I do think that your template will need to be changed with regard to the Church of Christ (Restored), as it began in the late 30's, not the 50's.  Take a look at my reply on the template page, and tell me what you think. - Ecjmartin (talk) 00:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Thanks--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 12:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

No Man Knows...again
Hey, just want to say thanks for stepping up to the challenge of dealing with John Foxe. I've actually been amazed in recent months how willing admins have been to turn a blind eye to his behavior (6 3RR violations in 6 weeks and only one 24hr block and a couple slap-on-the-wrist warnings a couple months ago). Given the last slog through the mire, I don't if you're willing to wade back in, but would you mind giving some feedback on whether this edit satisfies the requirements of WP:WEIGHT and WP:OR? I tried when I made the edit to keep out any hint of apologetic (ie "gotcha" factor) relate the statements directly back to the subject of the article. --FyzixFighter (talk) 23:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * John Foxe will not accept any edit made by anyone that disagrees with his POV. I tried to make a piece offering with him and he insulted me instead.  I tired to fight it, but as you said "willing admins have been to turn a blind eye to his behavior", and I don't think my comments are going to do any good.  I will read over it, but please don't get your hopes up.  I don't think this is going to get resolved until it goes to the end of the Dispute resolution process.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 18:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Told you that no matter what Foxe will not allow anything not conforming to his POV.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 21:01, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Temple Pictures
No problem - I'm fine with the change you made. BTW - the original pictures on that page were ordered by height of the picture so you could have less white space and more just a collage of pictures - but as time went by the pictures changed and I stopped updating the order. -- Trödel 01:47, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Logan Utah, Tabernacle
Yea, I took it myself. Oddly enough, just drove by it again yesterday, which is only my 2nd time in Logan, but its covered in scaffolding. Want me to upload it from the original source to commons? cOrneLlrOckEy (talk) 16:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No I just needed to know it came from you.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 16:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool, just leave it the same license and its kosher! cOrneLlrOckEy (talk) 16:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I just added self to it. Then it made it clear that you took the photo.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 16:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Logan Utah, Tabernacle
Yea, I took it myself. Oddly enough, just drove by it again yesterday, which is only my 2nd time in Logan, but its covered in scaffolding. Want me to upload it from the original source to commons? cOrneLlrOckEy (talk) 16:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No I just needed to know it came from you.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 16:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool, just leave it the same license and its kosher! cOrneLlrOckEy (talk) 16:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I just added self to it. Then it made it clear that you took the photo.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 16:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Talk:August Höglund
Hello, regarding this edit, we all make mistakes from time to time, but please do not remove assessments/project templates from relevant projects, and please do not mark edits as "minor" when you in fact was deleting a project template. Tomas e (talk) 15:21, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually it wasn't my intention to remove .  This was an error and I apologize.  I wasn't actually "remove assessments/project template"  or "deleting a project template". The "LDSproject" is just a redirect to "WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement", but "LDSproject" is actually a mistake per WP:NCLDS, so when I make changes to article using  "LDSproject", I default to "WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement"
 * However, My intention was only to move the into the "WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement", ie "marked as needing a photograph".  Per ""minor"" this is just "Simple formatting" so it would have been "Minor" if I hadn't made a mistake and removed "WikiProject Sweden".
 * Again I apologize for that error. Just so you know, I am done with this type of edit, so it wont happen again.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 15:33, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, ARTEST4ECHO
I don't remember if I sent an answer to your question about orphan articles. Sorry to send my words so late. Hope you already found a solution. Now I send best regards from Mexico City: if you need anything else, you may write to me. ¡Saludos! --Gustavo Sandoval Kingwergs (Gustavo Sandoval Kingwergs) 23:41, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Daniel Avery
See my note here. I'm not sure what the correct approach is here, but if you have an opinion, feel free to express it. Your action wasn't necessarily wrong; I think the answer is unclear. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Military on LDS template
Why did you remove (diff) the military parameters from the LDS template? —Eustress talk 14:44, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Completely by accident. I think what happened was the template sandbox was old, so after I experimented with some other changes and copied it over from the sandbox the Military stuff got removed. I put the military parameters in myself the first time. Sorry.  I put them back in.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 14:53, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries, template work can get complicated, so that's why I asked. Thanks. —Eustress talk 14:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm glad someone caught it. Thanks--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 14:58, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm trying to utilize the standard lavender color in the boxes. I believe I got it to work, but you reverted it. Issue? —Eustress talk 21:46, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually it didn't work. If you went to any of the pages the entire template failed.  I have fixed it now.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 21:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Weird, it worked on my browser, but either way, thanks! Any way to directly code in the military fields so we can have subheading color for military too? I gave it a couple tries to no avail. I'd also like to add in a signature field and move the website filed under Personal details. I'll give it a try, but if you can figure it out, by all means! —Eustress talk 21:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I found the issue with the color. See here  You were missing the ";'.  It should read, "| headerstyle = background-color: lavender;".
 * There already is a "signature field". See Brigham young
 * I am out of time for the day. I will work on the Military thing tomorrow.  I have been stumped by it also.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 22:04, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Templates
What are all the LDS templates, like Template:Latter Day Saint biography/Matthew Cowley, supposed to be for? The page that is meant to provide information on them, WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement/Latter Day Saint biography, does not exist. — This, that, and the other (talk) 02:11, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 14:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

←Same question... Why are you splicing out this content to embedded templates? It makes it less accessible to newer editors and creates an unnecessary page. —Eustress talk 22:18, 29 September 2011 (UTC) ? —Eustress talk 22:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Again I disagree. It is no harder to edit then the Infobox on the page itself.  By doing what I have it allows for the numerous list to be update at the same time as the pages.  There have already been numerous errors found by myself and Good Olfactory that have been there for years because when the pages are fixed the lists aren't.  Additionally the pages I planned on doing are almost done.  Additionally the "list" template pages were already created so in the end there wont be any "unnecessary page" as they will be deleted in the end. This worked very well on List of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and it will here also.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 22:42, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay. It appears when you inserted the templates, you added a superfluous space between the dab and the template. Will you please go through a fix? —Eustress talk 22:48, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Reply re deletion of Edward Stevenson photo
I replied here: - the deletion was not justified. - Reaverdrop ( talk / nl ) 05:41, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You are correct and I was in error, however, you need to ask the admin who deleted the image to restore it. Addationlly you may want to supply a source since someone else is going to come along an tag "no source" again.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 12:23, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Frank Asper photo
You posted a photo of Dr. Alexander Schreiner, NOT Frank Asper. I know for certain I have a ohoto from 'The Diapason' of Frank Asper getting an award after he was retired and obviously, neither man bore any resemblance to the other, furthermore, Dr. Schreiner was taller. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.213.119 (talk) 10:48, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You are correct. I cropped the wrong person from the source.  I have corrected the image.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 12:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Teancum
Since you deal with alot of images on LDS articles, could you comment at Talk:Teancum. I don't care if you agree with my position(s), as it's probably I'm at least partially wrong, but it seems we need fresh eyes there. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 00:34, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Bigotry
Please take a look at this. I've been working constructively with LDS people since back when the net was young, all web browsers were named Mosaic, and small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri were real small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri. That does not change the fact that BYU does indeed place unusual limits on academic freedom in cases that affect Mormon doctrine. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Let agree to disagree. Being accused of placing limits dose not make it a fact.  It is a matter of opinion and source can be found on both sides.  I also don't see groups of Wikipedia editors saying that liberal schools can't be used for sources on liberal topic, or Catholic schools on catholic topics, or private school on such topics.  I don't see a difference, but you do.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 18:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I will apologize for the use of the term "Anti-Mormon Bigotry". I get accused of being pro-Mormon (so I am not impartial) all the time since my family history involves Mormon, while at the same time Anti-Mormon since I am not a member of the LDS Church (so I am not impartial).  I just get tired of hearing that all Mormons and any Mormon research is automatically flawed and I over reacted.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 18:53, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, apology accepted. BTW, I've seen editors that indeed claim that we cannot use "liberal schools" as sources. The difference, for me, is that secular universities normally have very strong protections for academic freedom - with the very aim of allowing the faculty to think and communicate without fear of reprisals, and to follow the argument - or the data - wherever it may lead. This is not universally so for religious schools - Liberty University, e.g., apparently requires teachers (and certainly requires students) to profess believe in a literal six day creation. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:49, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Not that I can use her for a WP:V source, but my sister just reticently retired as a BYU employee. I asked her last night about this subject.  While BYU researchers, staff and students are required to meet the BYU academic code (including morality, dress codes and codes of conduct) and attend religious classes the are not required to even believe in a Christian type God.  Which by default mean that they are not required to "profess believe in a literal six day creation" since not all religious believe in the six day creation.  A "History of Religion" and "Non-Mormon" type religious class are offered as a choices for students of Non-Mormon backgrounds.  However, I freely admit that a Non-Morom BYU student is a rarity and that Mormon culture is a big part of BYU, there are no "requirements" to be Mormon.  I think part of the reason most BYU students are Mormon is because of a "Pack" mentality (ie. I'm a Mormon so I should go to a Mormon school) and (to be a greedy capitalist) Money. (Non-Mormons pay a higher Non-Mormon rate, like out of state students pay more then in state student).
 * Yes BYU does have rules that are more "Religious and conservative", that push Religious views, then alot of schools, but no more then any other "Religious" school as in the county. However, BYU is an accredited school, just like liberal schools, and part of the accreditation process is proof that they have the same "very strong protections for academic freedom".  They have the same "protections" that give liberal school there "academic freedom".  I am not saying there aren't "issues" with research at the school, but no more than any other school, and these are "exception".  If there were never issues there would never be a need for "protections".
 * I also find that, if you look deeply into the issues that I have read about, the accusations of BYU interference in research are usually options from people who have had an issue with BYU or the Mormon Church in general. If you read into the back stories, you will find that the individual have violated some policy or they don't get along with there fellow researchers, but it is all unrelated to the research.  So they begin to accuse the school of interfering in there research as a way to justify there actions.  However, the LDS church has strict "non-disclosure" rules regrading church discipline, so were not getting both sides of the story.  So the entire issue become a subjective matter of opinion.  I would bet a million dollars (but I don't have that) that if you asked all the BYU researchers, a large majority would say that they are not pressured to be bias in any way.  On the opposite side, those who disagree with them, by a large majority, would say the BYU researcher are.  Again, making this a matter of "opinion".
 * So I ask "How many thousands of hours and thousands of students have done accurate and well sources research, that would be "ignored" simply because they are "Mormon", if this type of "Mormon sources cannot be used on Mormon topic" policy were the norm?" Aren't Mormon the ones most interested in Mormonism, so they do the most research.  Aren't they the "experts" in that field (so to speak)?  What will be left if they are excluded?  Mainly bias anti-Mormon research, yet I don't see a push to ban that type of research.  Are we to say that "Christian researchers" have to have a "non-christian" backing them up in order to be believed?  When someone say things like "A second non bias (ie non-Mormon) source is required" it sound like an attempt to ignore Mormons in order to push an anti-Mormon view.
 * I guess it just bothers me when I see groups of people ignored because of the fact that they are something that another group doesn't like, especially when part of Wikipedia is that everyone should be allowed to work here and "no editors are more equal than others". Not that I am asking (I really don't want to know, so please don't tell me.  I make it a point not to ask or say what I am), but lets say you were "Methodist", I would argue just as strongly against anyone who said "Stephan Schulz" is bias because he is "Methodist" so a "Non-Methodist second source is needed".--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 12:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Pseudoscience
I think we need to keep any eye on this. See also. - Cheers - DVdm (talk) 14:28, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

, it happens to the best of us :-) - Cheers. DVdm (talk) 14:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't know I left my brain in the car. I thought I was on the IP's talk page.  I even thought "Wow, for an IP talk page this guy has alot of legitimate talk.  He should register".  I should have noticed it was your page not his.  Sorry about that.
 * On a side note, I like how he "accidentally" blanked two different pages, LOL.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 14:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Some problems with your edits
I think you copied the wrong stuff when you added wikiproject banners to some articles. Here is an example of one of the edits. You also did Talk:Milton R. Hunter. I don't think you wanted to add politician-work-group and listas=Woodruff, Wilford. Also the WikiProject Biography banner no longer uses the "priority" parameter. It is now sports-priority-group, politician-priority, etc...

Adding Woodruff to another General Authority is probably ok. But, if you added it to say, my article if I had one, then you would be struck with lightning so fast and sent off to outer darkness. Bgwhite (talk) 20:44, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No that is completely an error on my part. I was copying and pasting and failed to realzed what I did.  I will fix them as soon as I can, but I'm leaving now so I'm sorry but it will be a litte bit.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 20:52, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that all my errors have been fix and I hope they have been. Sorry about the mistake.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 16:31, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Durban South Africa Temple


The article Durban South Africa Temple has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Page concerns a building which does not yet have a location or material existence, but has mergely been announced as a future project, hence failing WP:FUTURE at present (with no prejudice to creation of a future page once it does exist and has demonstrable notability).

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. AllyD (talk) 21:05, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Provo Utah Tabernacle Temple
Dear ARTEST4ECHO,

I've added a merger template to the article Provo Utah Tabernacle Temple which you created. I suggest that it be merged into the article Provo Tabernacle, where sections about the fire and restoration of the temple are already existing. These could be expanded using the information from this article. What is your opinion concerning this proposal?

Best regards

--Phileasson (talk) 16:40, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I did a soft redirect
of plyg to the wiktionary. diff - Is that what u wr lookg for?--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 22:45, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I don't understand what "plyg" mean exactly. To me it seems just like a slag way of saying "Polygamist".  However, it seems to mean more to you and others, so I'm going to cede to your wisdom here and claim "I guess I just don't know".  However, I was not the one who suggest the "merge" only the delete based on Wikipedia is not a dictionary.  You should probably ask 208.81.184.4.  He/she may be a IP editor, for what ever reason, but he is very very active in LDS type articles.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 13:18, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If two subjects are greatly overlap then a merge would be indicated (with its use of a so-called "hard redirect." However, WP's practice seems to be to give separate encyclopedic coverage to slurs (such of any of the entries at Category:Ethnic and religious slurs--which makes sense, since slurs, while pertaining to the ethnic or religious groups in question, are something quite distinct from the group themselves (and indeed are more about the people using them then about the groups being slurred, IMO). IAC, how I think it tends to work is that when there is insufficient material contributed to pass muster per the guideline "Wikipedia is not a dictionary", its general recommendation to substitute a so-called soft redirect to the Wiktionary kicks in. (The first three sentences @ DICDEF):"Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a slang, jargon or usage guide. The goal of this project is to create an encyclopedia. Our sibling project Wiktionary has the goal of creating a dictionary. It is the 'lexical companion to Wikipedia,' and the two often link to each other."The very last sentence in the guideline reads:"For Wikipedia articles which could only ever be dictionary definitions and keep being re-created and re-deleted, or which could potentially be proper articles but are dictionary-like stubs at the moment, it is possible to salt them with a soft redirect to Wiktionary using code such as."--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 23:29, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Children of JSJr.
Sorry my response is so tardy. I answered you over at the talk page for that article. Best, A Sniper (talk) 19:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Parley P. Pratt
I reverted a recent edit you made at Parley P. Pratt (PPP), and thought I should provide a better explanation than the edit summary, as I was a bit cryptic. You changed wording to say PPP was baptized into the LDS Church in 1830. That's not correct usage (per Manual of Style/Latter Day Saints), as that naming convention post-dates the succession crisis. However the wording in the PPP article is still not quite correct after my revert. I'll see if I can figure out, but you're naturally welcome to give it another go. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 20:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I see you are correct. I didn't read the paragraph well enough.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 20:41, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives
RE: The nominees received are reviewed by Special Agents in the CID and the Office of Public Affairs. The selection of the "proposed" candidate(s) is forwarded to the Assistant Director of the CID for his/her approval and then to the FBI's Director for final approval. This processes takes some time which is why Osama Bin Laden, who was killed by U.S. military forces on May 2, 2011, and James Joseph "Whitey" Bulger, Jr., who was arrested in Santa Monica, California on June 22, 2011, are both still on the FBI Top Ten list and despite no longer being at large.

Thanks for the information. Your addition fully explains the substantial delay. I did not realise what a major deal getting added to the top 10 most wanted fugitives list is. It is probably easier to earn a top 10 international tennis player ranking!! B. Fairbairn (talk) 09:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * First, thank you for the positive input. When ever I get the "You have a new message" notice I worry about what I messed up or what someone is complaining about.  It is always nice to get positive input.
 * I notice the several people have made the mistake of either taking Bin Laden or Bulger off the list or trying to explain why they are still on the list, but not citing there additions. This has lead to several reverts that really didn't need to happen, so I thought I would try to fix that.
 * I agree it is "probably easier to earn a top 10 international tennis player ranking". I just don't understand why the FBI just doesn't take them off the list immediately and have less then 10 on the list.  No one is going to complain.  I guess they are just trying to leave them on to Pat themselves on the back by saying "SEE WE GOT THIS GUY!!!" even when they had nothing to do with it. (ie. the CIA got Bin Laden not the FBI).--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 14:05, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Ha, ha, yes, I suspected the FBI were giving themselves a non-deserved pat on the back. Maybe by leaving the faces on the list and marking them as "deceased" and "captured" the FBI think thy are letting people know what happened.  This is despite the termination mission (unauthorised) in Pakistan receiving more media attention than the last presidential election :-).
 * The primary reason I thanked you for explaining the reason for the grossly out-of-date 'current' list is that you were able to see exactly the point I was making and answer the question without becoming arrogant, obnoxious or downright rude. Thanks again.  If only many other reviewers were more intellectually and socially equipped.  B. Fairbairn (talk) 09:22, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Ya, undoubtedly some editor can get "arrogant, obnoxious or downright rude". However, I have to admit I have had my times also.  Some of it comes from the lack of "Emotional input" that comes from communicating via messages.  Sometimes, I have had people think I was trying to be rude, when in fact I could care less and my motives for doing what ever it was had nothing to do with the other editor.  I have also fell into that trap myself (ie assuming rudeness where there was none).  Not that it doesn't happen.  I know several editors that are very rude and need a good B-slapping.  All I can do is to do my best to follow the rules and help make Wikipedia better.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 13:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps Wikipedia could introduce a "name and shame" list of Rudest Editors. The only trouble here is it would encourage people whose sole ability in life is in criticising others! B. Fairbairn (talk) 11:58, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

W. W. Phelps (Mormon)
Regarding this request, I think I can clarify things a little, though it is confusing. Phelps was not an Assistant President of the Church as a whole. But he was designated an assistant president of the church in Missouri. In today's LDS Church parlance, I guess we could kind of refer to him as a member of the Missouri "stake presidency", or a member of the "Missouri area presidency". I think there were three members, including Phelps, who held this position together. They were essentially the leaders of the church in Missouri, but you're right that they held no general authority over the church as a whole. I'll try to find a citation for this and maybe it could be explained more clearly in the article itself. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:16, 8 December 2011 (UTC)