User talk:Bcatt/unprocessed archive

User categorization
You were listed on the Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Canada page as living in or being associated with Canada. As part of the User categorisation project, these lists are being replaced with user categories. If you would like to add yourself to the category that is replacing the page, please visit Category:Wikipedians in British Columbia for instructions. --Doviende 18:42, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

wikipedians
Hello, i saw you were listed on the category:wikipedians by fields of interest under drugs/drug addiction, and i invite you to read this and add your name or something else if you want. cheers! --Ballchef 13:01, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Line breaks
Hey, your line breaks question at WP:HD has been answered. Hope that solution works for you :o) tiZom(the man)  23:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Xenotransplantation
Greetings, Bcatt! I'm not quite sure about which part of the article you are referring to. The only sentence I intended to delete was "jack n sux dick", in the end of that entry. I also restored a sentence that had been removed by an anonymous user. Perhaps it was not a good idea to label both actions as "revert vandalism", but I thought that restoring that sentence would give more cohesion to the text. Anyway, I won't mind if you decide to undo that. Thank you, Leoadec 17:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

No problem, Bcatt. : ) And thank you for your tip on edit summaries. See you, Leoadec (talk) 12:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Metis_flag_blue.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Metis_flag_blue.gif. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Wikipedia is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this:.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. -- Carnildo 14:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikimedia Canada
Hi there! I'd like to invite you to explore Wikimedia Canada, and create a list of people interested in forming a local chapter for our nation. A local chapter will help promote and improve the organization, within our great nation. We'd also like to encourage everyone to suggest projects for our national chapter to participate in. Hope to see you there!--DarkEvil 17:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Victoriabcemblem.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Victoriabcemblem.gif. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Wikipedia is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this:.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. -- Carnildo 06:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes
&#123;&#123;User:Vacuum/sig}} 02:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Joseph Smith, Jr.
BCATT,
 * Why on earth do you insist on putting excessive emphasis on my name (and displaying it wrong in the process)?

I saw you added the NPOV to the article cited above and read your reasons. Though you stated you felt the article was biased (which in itself does not merit the label), you only reason was referring to memebers as Saints.
 * That is still a reason. In addition, I was also agreeing with the comments made previously by 128.125.118.151:
 * "that the entire article is biased toward history as presented by the Church which has been heavily censored and changed. Reviewing the editing history, it appears any changes actively maintain the pro-Church bias a la FARMS and other Church publicity machines. It basically avoids any of the controversial and damning bits of history that discredit Smith and show the side of his character that the Church won't tell you about because that would, by the Church's own admission, call into question the veracity of the Church. To be a neutral article, it should demonstrate Smith's claims, detractor's claims and pertinent historical fact for both. As it is, most of the article states Smith's claims, or rather the Church's assertions about Smith, as if they were fact. The myriad of Church publications cited for the article should be indicative of the bias. I can only assume this article is being tended by Church interests at the expense of neutrality."
 * which is the same as giving reasons.

I question your understanding of the Latter Day Saint movement.
 * One does not need to understand a subject in great depth to recognoze POV. Regardless, you have no real basis for questioning my understanding of the topic in the first place.

Although I explained why this demonstrates a lack of understanding of Mormonism, I felt it would be best to open a dialogue directly with you.
 * In fact, it does not demonstrate a lack of understanding. I was quite aware that the reference was to "Latter-day Saints". My point, which I made very clear in the first place, was that "Saints" is a misleading term and more neutral references should be used to indicate JS's followers, so as not to confuse or push POV on people who come to the article seeking information.

Saint is a term used to refer to those who follow Christ;
 * The average person (which, by the way, is the target audience of wikipedia articles, and the reason why all articles are to be strictly NPOV), reads "Saint" as it's most traditional Christian meaning: "A person officially recognized, especially by canonization, as being entitled to public veneration and capable of interceding for people on earth."
 * Plus, I have NEVER heard any garden variety religious person or group referred to as "Saints" by anyone but themselves. Most especially not by anyone interested in using neutral terms.

if your Bible has a dictionary in the back check it out;
 * I'd have to go to the library, I don't keep books around if they don't encourage spiritual and intellectual growth.

a topical guide is also helpful.
 * Do you mean a "guide" that is going to help me learn all about mormonism from a mormon POV?

It is this usage that meant by the term Saint in LDS articles. It does not mean a holy person as is used in historical Christianity
 * I knew that, the average joe does not know that.

(see Saint).
 * My point exactly!!!!

I would also invite you personally to join the LDS WikiProject.
 * No thanks

It is a group of knowledable individuals who strive to ensure balance in all of the articles related to the Latter Day Saint movement.
 * I'm sure they do

Storm Rider 06:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I saw that you reinserted the NPOV label without providing one reason.
 * Actually, I provided the following reasons:

You have made broad accusations,
 * Use of the term "Saints" in reference to Mormons, is only in use by those who are religious, it is NOT a universally used term, and therefore, it's use in the article is misleading
 * very little is mentioned about the more controversial topics related to Joseph Smith.
 * The article is also very misleading as to JS's alleged "visions" speaking of them as though they are proven fact, whereas they are actually no more than a claim made by JS himself.
 * Contrary to your statement directed to the unsigned user above, it is NOT customary for religious articles to be written from the point of view of the people who hold those beliefs...EVERY wikipedia article is supposed to be written in strict NPOV, discussing ALL supportive AND opposing views EQUALLY...wikipedia IS NOT a religious recruiting vehicle
 * There are many opposing views regarding mormonisn not expressed here, and therefore the article is heavily biased
 * Actually, they are not really that broad, although they aren't nit-pickingly specific

but nothing concise as directed by WIKI policy.
 * Concise means short

You have been around long enough to know the drill; do it right or it will be reverted.
 * And I'm sure you've been around long enough to know that your behaviour in regard to this article is inappropriate...and that you are not the be all and end all of what is right and wrong on wikipedia, although you clearly enjoy asserting yourself as such.
 * Please note that it may be helpful for you to read WP:DNFT

We all assume good faith from others until they prove that their intentions do not merit it.
 * I suppose your POV is that my interest in NPOVing this article is "proof that my intentions do not merit assumation of good faith" and/or my expression of NPOV concerns are an expression of bad faith...or some other silly notion?

Storm Rider 07:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The use of the term Saint is a term used by everyone who has a modicum of understanding about Mormonism.
 * Is this one of those typical illogical religiously biased arguments? IE: Anyone who has a modicum of understanding of mormonism IS mormon, and all mormons refer to themselves as "Saints", and anyone who does not believe in mormonism is ignorant on the subject. A clearly baseless and misleading argument.

It certainly is not only used by religious people. Where do you get you come up with this stuff?!?! Bcatt, put your axe down.
 * I'm the one with the axe? I simply sugested maing the article properly NPOV, you are the one attacking and patronizing everyone who disagrees with YOUR POV.

I have not reviewed all of your past contributions, but you obviously have a good mind and can bring a lot to these articles.
 * You should take the time to do so..I especially pride myself on being capable of writing an NPOV article on subjects I feel VERY passionately about.

However, take some time to gain a better understanding of the subject matter. You are shooting from the hip and it is not working well.
 * Really? And your evidence of that is? (non-Church sources, please)

Storm Rider 08:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Notice BCATT
 * There's that unnecessary and inflammatory emphasis (improperly too) on my name again...only more unnecessary and more inflammatory this time. Hmmmmm.

that you have not followed proper procedure;
 * I actually was not far off on my procedure, you are simply nit-picking to try to throw me off and "defend" "your" POV article.

most importantly you have not clearly and exactly explained which part of the article does not see to meet NPOV policy and WHY.
 * In fact, I explained very well what I was having an issue with, you just chose to ignore it. Plus, at the time you were posting this to my talk page, I was in the process of writing out a description which left zero doubt as to what I am referring to. Maybe you should allow a person a proper opportunity to express themselves...the little "watchdog" routine is highly unnecessary.

Broad accusations such as, "There are many opposing views regarding mormonisn not expressed here, and therefore the article is heavily biased and I am going to restore the NPOV tag."
 * Funny, the NPOV article states that that is a perfectly valid reason for beginning an NPOV discussion.

You have said nothing, but made an accusation.
 * You just might want to check your own responses, I dare point out that it is you who has said nothing of substance in response and instead have just thrown around accusations and uninformed insults.

If you do not follow policy I will delete the label tomorrow evening.
 * Perhaps you should pay more attention to making sure you do not abuse wikipedia policy, than you do to trying to discredit people's valid comments based on "they didn't follow the (often simply "suggested") policy to the meta letter.

Storm Rider 08:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

bcatt 11:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

new
We are talking past one another. Everything you have accused me of is exactly the way I regard your work. You do not use sources; you just whine, you do not review the sources used by others; rather you blather on as if they don't exist. In our recent conversations, nothing I have said has been opinion, but I have consistently referred to other WIKI articles so that you could read from objective sources on WIKI.

It is interesting when humans speak past one another and proves in this instance that neither is very enlightened. So let's assume that we think the other is a complete jerk and devoid of rational thought. In doing so, neither of us has to grow emotionally while providing each a false sense of smug satisfaction that we got the last word. btw, you have a beautiful daughter; our child died at 3 months. You are lucky. Storm Rider 16:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Read the conversation on the JS talk page again...you will se that I have in fact provided wikipedia POLICY to support my suggestions of the changes needed, whereas you have done nothing but whine that you don't want anybody changing anything because the proposed changes don't fit with your POV. I'm sorry that it upsets you that your pain-in-the-rear techniques have not worked in deterring me from seeking NPOV on ALL wikipedia articles, I'm sure it works with many people, but it won't work with me. So suck it up, don't try to own the article, and allow the subject to be represented in a manner that equally reflects both pro- and anti- JS views...that is what wikipedia is all about. bcatt 18:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

How can you say the tag is unsupported?
very easily :) - jk - i gave reasons on the talk page. Although some of the language you point to could arguably be reworded, it does not make the entire article violate NPOV. my best advice is sofixit regarding the language you think is too sympathetic Trödel&#149; talk 12:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The article uses charged language in both direction, IMHO, but overall the article presents a complex person well Trödel&#149; talk 12:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * as per my comment on your talk page, that only amplifies the need for the npov tag. bcatt 12:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it nees subtle adjusting not wholesale changing - that is why the npov tag is not necessary. Trödel&#149; talk 12:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Well - looks like some people started editing as a result of your comment - but the tag says that "The neutrality of this article is disputed." Which means to me that the article is not neutral, not that the language to present different viewpoints are worded in the best way possible. This article could not get concensus to apply for featured status for many reasons - one of which is how to present the information. The fix is not easy - because the many people involved (who you lump together as pro-mormon) have strong feelings and differing viewpoints on his life - and it involved forking the article and working on the individual sections - one of the forks did get concensus enough to be a featured article.

However, it is difficult for them to draft without bias - that is why I suggested that you reword some of the sentences you thought had problem to help us fix the article. Marking of the article as npov and listing things that you claim are too "LDS," for lack of a better term, without any suggestions on how to improve the article (in my mind the hard work) just set me off a little - unfortunately I was less than pleasant as a result - I am sorry about that. I'll see if I can contribute some tonight towards the improvements. Trödel&#149; talk 22:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't recall giving you permission to edit/censor my talk page Trödel. I consider this vandalism. bcatt 04:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You said:

I'm not really surprised...it's just irritating, so I'm no longer going to bother trying to be logical with someone who clearly is too influenced by their bias to do the same. Waste of time...read up on NPOV. bcatt 01:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You can consider it vandalism if you want - but please be true to your word. Trödel&#149; talk 22:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Mayan languages deleted?
Bcatt, can you explain what happened to the Mayan Languages page? It appears to me that your revisions on 2006-02-10 deleted the paragraphs I wrote about these languages: Uspanteko, Achi, Jakalteko and Akateko. Can you tell me if I am reading the history correctly, and if so, why these paragraphs were removed?

I work with a Guatemalan immigrant community here in Ohio, and I have enjoyed learning about their native languages. The published literature has a long way to go to capture the rich diversity among the Maya. I would like to continue collecting the known information on this subject and reporting in Wikipedia. So, I would like to learn the best way to post this information.

Thank you,

Richard Renner Dover, Ohio www.taterenner.com

r3 03:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It appears that when I intended to remove something small, I actually removed a large portion of the article by accident. I will fix that immediatly. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. bcatt 04:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Bcatt. My faith in good faith is restored.  The Mayan Languages page still needs some work.  The language tree does not have the languages grouped or organized in the most informative structure.  Also, there is more information in the world about the available writings in these languages.  The fuller descriptions could give readers access to this rich culture.

r3 04:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the invitation, but I really don't know anything about Mayan languages at all! I had just noticed that an anonymous user had gone through a lot of pages and vandalized them, I was trying to work my way through their list of "contributions" and remove any that had not been caught by other users. However, it sounds like a very interesting subject and I will do some internet research and see if it's something I have a capacity for. bcatt 05:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Bcatt, I wonder if you can help advise me about what is happening to my article Columbus, Ohio, Rally for Immigrants Rights 2006-03-26. I am wondering why this rally would not be encyclopedic, but the following are: September 24, 2005 anti-war protest, Category:Protest marches and List of protest marches on Washington, D.C. Also, my talk page, and that of DMG413, has a discussion about how the event is described in Portal:Politics/News. I think I originally did what DMG413 wanted (make an article and link to it), but that is what DMG413 undid. I think the reference to "Protests against stronger enforcement of US immigration reform laws" falsely suggests that HR 4437 is just an enforcement of current laws. In fact, it is a steep increase in the severity of those laws. I think my description was more neutral, and included the link to the article I wrote: "Thousands of demonstrators gather in Los Angeles, California, Phoenix, Arizona, and in Columbus, Ohio to call for legal status for immigrant workers and protest proposals to increase penalties for undocumented immigrants." I would welcome your judgment about what is more neutral and encyclopedic. Also, I do not know what the proceedure is resolve this. Thanks for your help. 13:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Deleted userboxes
Quoted from User_talk:Pathoschild: ''Thanks so much for your efforts at substitution of deleted userboxes. Recently Doc glasgow speedily deleted a bunch of user boxes I had on my page, messing up my whole format...I can't seem to be able to look at the history in order to copy the script to my page...how do I do this? Thanks in advance. bcatt 05:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)''

You're very welcome. Deleted history is only visible to administrators; following are the userboxes you're missing; feel free to insert them into your user page.

{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%; text-align:left;" ! Template name !! Template !! code // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 06:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * &#123;{User EFF}}
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * &#123;{User POV userbox}}
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * &#123;{User ape-equality}}
 * &#123;{User ape-equality}}
 * &#123;{User cannabis}}
 * &#123;{User cannabis}}
 * &#123;{User death-expand}}
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * &#123;{User eugenics-voluntary}}
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * &#123;{User gun control}}
 * <div style="float: left; border:solid 1px; margin: 1px;">
 * <div style="float: left; border:solid 1px; margin: 1px;">
 * <div style="float: left; border:solid 1px; margin: 1px;">
 * &#123;{User incl}}
 * <div style="float: left; border:solid 1px; margin: 1px;">
 * <div style="float: left; border:solid 1px; margin: 1px;">
 * <div style="float: left; border:solid 1px; margin: 1px;">
 * &#123;{User life and choice}}
 * <div style="float: left; border:solid 1px; margin: 1px;">
 * <div style="float: left; border:solid 1px; margin: 1px;">
 * <div style="float: left; border:solid 1px; margin: 1px;">
 * }

Userbox Controversy
Hello, I regret you inform you that userboxes will most likely be nonexistent in a number of days, to weeks, or even months when considering the voluminous amount of the aforementioned. Rob McKay has informed me, and his user page details the erasing of userboxes by extreme admins, and it seems they are winning. This is also evidence of the rapid deleting of templates and userboxes. Please take a look at the Deletion log to see. Individual admins are also doing their share of damage to userboxes. | Kelly Martin deletes many (and a lot of the templates she deletes are often reviewed, and reinserted into the namespace), as well as Mushroom. Please inform others, show your support for userboxes, and take individual codes from any userboxes you may have and replace your template userboxes with them, so as to prevent any other admins from attempting to delete them. There may in fact be a cabal. Thanks. Эйрон Кинни  17:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Your welcome. Эйрон  Кинни  19:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, you mentioned that to avoid bias, it would be best to take my current stand on the atheist userbox and apply it to other similar userboxen. Might I ask you to help me out by making a hitlist on my talk page? Thanks!

Thanks
Thank you for signing my manifesto. Lucky you, you aren't going to just get my cookie cutter thank you, I actually have unique comments to make on yours.

I think it is quite ironic that you mentioned your support for the pluralist concept in my manifest, because I almost didn't put it in. I thought of it at the last minute because I could tell something important was missing. Take a look at the newsflash on my userpage, as well as MarkSweep's attempt to take it out in my page history.

Also, I was wondering, quite undivisively of course, why you think the death penalty should be used more? It seems to conflict with some other userboxes you have, assuming you were serious about them. Anyways, thanks a lot. The Ungovernable Force 08:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Birth
Please create the article first before adding a questionable reference. Certainly being a "doctor" doesn't rate a listing. Rklawton 00:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't add it, I just restored it after it was removed with no reason other than "it was red", it is better to err on the side of caution...ie: just because it's red, doesn't mean it's not notable. While I agree that being a physician doesn't make one notable, there are many physicians who are notable. Perhaps you could raise the question of their notability with the person who originally added the link, but this should be done before removing it. It isn't a requirement to write the article in order for it to be linked, red links actually help people find articles that need to be written. bcatt 02:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Sealing

 * Bcatt, you would be surprised at how munificent others can be when one asks a question.


 * This is an interesting question that is not directly taught to missionaries i.e. "go out an seal those who are rebellious and unbelieving". However, in this context, to seal is an expression that means "to bind" or "to secure".  The properly authorized servants of God have the power to seal the unbelieving and rebellious to judgment and punishment (compare with D&C 88:84; 133:71-71.  In the NT look at Matt 10:14,15, Mark 6:11).  This negative "sealing" can be a literal action as demonstrated in the New Testament or it can be figurative, as when missionaries remove the excuse of ignorance from those who reject the gospel and thus leave them exposed to the law of justice.  LDSs feel a committment to share the Gospel with others; sometimes in scripture it is called warning your neighbor.  It should be noted, however, that such a negative "sealing" does not override the law of agency, nor is such a sealing the cause in itself of condemnation.  In one sense, the sealing is a token or indication that all that ought to be done for an individual, a village, or a people has been done through our efforts, and they may now be fairly subjected to the Lord's judgements.  Yet even among those who have been sealed up to judgement, any who will repent of their sins and come to Christ will still be forgiven.


 * It would not be appropriate, as you have surmised, to compare this negatie sealing power with that of sealings done between a woman and her husband and their children. This is the far more common usage of the term and is an authority given to few.


 * Also, you have heard it said that LDS believe that only those who receive all the ordinances can be exalted (including the ordinance of being sealed. In reality, we believe that everyone that has ever lived will have these ordinances done for them.  In turn, each individual will have the opportunity to accept those ordinances or reject them.  We further believe that we are judged by our knowledge of the truth and the way in which we "live" the truths we know.  In other words, a Buddist as every ability to enter the Celestial Kingdom as does a LDS.  We believe that God judges us by our knowledge and our actions.  Hope this helps. Cheers Storm Rider (talk) 01:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

What is this "law of agency" you speak of? When you say "everyone that has ever lived will have these ordinances done for them" are you speaking of baptism for the dead? bcatt 02:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC) Also, what exactly does the Mormon concept of heaven entail? bcatt 02:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC) And, when you describe these two kinds of negative sealings, would it be that the NT example would be a "sealing on earth", while the missionary example would be a "sealing in heaven"? bcatt 02:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You have asked some very important questions that unfortunately can not be answered easily if one is to gain a deeper understanding. I have tried to be brief and have failed to some degree.  The law of agency, as LDS believe, is a law that all people possess free will to choose.  We may choose to do good or choose to do evil.  This law is the polar opposite of predestination.  It is so fundamental to Mormonism and is intertwined with almost every other principle that I think it might be best if I quote Bruce R. McConkie’s definition in Mormon Doctrine (This will be lengthy, but it should give a better understanding than a shorter definition that I would provide such as above):


 * Agency is the ability and freedom to choose good or evil. It is an eternal principle which has existed with God from all eternity. The spirit offspring of the Father had agency in pre-existence and were thereby empowered to follow Christ or Lucifer according to their choice. (Moses 4:3; D. & C. 29:36-37.) It is by virtue of the exercise of agency in this life that men are enabled to undergo — the testing which is an essential part of mortality. (Moses 3:17; 4:3; 7:32; Abra. 3:25-28.)


 * Four great principles must be in force if there is to be agency: 1. Laws must exist, laws ordained by an Omnipotent power, laws which can be obeyed or disobeyed; 2. Opposites must exist — good and evil, virtue and vice, right and wrong — that is, there must be an opposition, one force pulling one way and another pulling the other; 3. A knowledge of good and evil must be had by those who are to enjoy the agency, that is, they must know the difference between the opposites; and 4. An unfettered power of choice must prevail.


 * Agency is given to man as an essential part of the great plan of redemption. As with all things appertaining to this plan, it is based on the atoning sacrifice of Christ. As Lehi expressed it: "Because that they are redeemed from the fall they have become free forever, knowing good from evil to act for themselves and not to be acted upon, save it be by the punishment of the law at the great and last day, according to the commandments which God hath given. Wherefore, men are free according to the flesh; and all things are given them which are expedient unto man. And they are free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great mediation of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil; for he seeketh that all men might be miserable like unto himself." (2 Ne. 2:26-30; 10:23; Alma 13:3; Hela. 14:31.)


 * Agency is so fundamental a part of the great plan of creation and redemption that if it should cease, all other things would vanish away. "All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence." (D. & C. 93:30.) Expanding and interpreting this revealed principle, Lehi said: "it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, . . . righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility. Wherefore, it must needs have been created for a thing of naught; wherefore there would have been no purpose in the end of its creation. Wherefore, this thing must needs destroy the wisdom of God and his eternal purposes, and also the power, and the mercy, and the justice of God.


 * "And if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not there is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away." (2 Ne. 2:11-14; D. & C. 29:39.)


 * Agency is the philosophy of opposites, and because these opposites exist, men can reap either salvation or damnation by the use they make of their agency. If it were not for the law of agency, there could be no judgment according to works and consequently no rewards or punishments. "Choose ye this day, to serve the Lord God who made you" (Moses 6:33), is the voice of the Lord to all people of all ages. (Alma 30:8; Josh. 24:15.)


 * Satan "sought to destroy the agency of man" (Moses 4:3), an eventuality which would have made the attainment of salvation impossible, and accordingly he was cast out of heaven. Two great agencies on earth pattern their courses in accordance with Lucifer's program of compulsion and seek to deny the inalienable right of agency to men. These are the church of the devil and the communistic dictatorship, both of which prosper proportionately as they are able to withhold truth from their adherents and compel them through fear to conform to the "religious" and "party" lines. On the other hand, it is the will of the Lord that all agencies, governments included, should be so ordained "That every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment." (D. & C. 101:78.)


 * Churches which teach that men are predestined to gain salvation or damnation, according to the election of God, regardless of the acts of the individual, find no place in their theology for the true doctrine of agency. Their reasoning is to this effect: Why is there any need for agency, so as to be able to perform good works leading to salvation, if your salvation is determined by Deity on the basis of predestination regardless of works? Thus the false doctrine of predestination begets the false doctrine that men are not free to work out their own salvation, as such is made possible through the atoning sacrifice of Christ. The Church of England, for instance, in its Articles of Religion, under the heading of "Free Will," says: "The condition of Man after the fall of Adam is such, that he cannot turn and prepare himself by his own natural strength and good works, to faith, and calling upon God: Wherefore we have no power to do good works pleasant and acceptable to God, without the grace of God by Christ preventing us, that we may have a good will, and working with us, when we have that good will." (Book of Common Prayer, p. 663.)


 * Agency, of course, is exercised in accordance with law. Once a final choice has been made, there is no turning back to seek the opposite goal. Men may exercise their agency to repent and turn to the Lord in this life, in which event they will be saved. But if they choose to rebel against the light and work wickedness, they will be damned. And once they are damned, there is no power of choice left whereby they can alter their course and gain salvation. If men choose to commit suicide, for instance, they will continue to have agency in hell, but they will not be able to use it to gain their lives back again. The purpose of this life is to test men, to see if they will take the bodies which have been given them, and by the righteous exercise of agency make those bodies fit abodes for the Spirit of God. (Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 2d ed. [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1966], 26.)


 * ’’’Ordinances’’’ as mentioned above refers to all ordinances that LDS believe are requisite for exaltation or the Celestial Kingdom. These ordinances include baptism, the temple endowment and all that entails, and temple sealing (commonly referred to as being married for all time and eternity).


 * The concept of Heaven for LDS is closely linked to this conversation on ordinances. To enter the Celestial Kingdom one must have all the ordinances described above.  This is the highest kingdom of glory.  LDS believe in several heavens and one enters the kingdom of glory/heaven where one is most comfortable.  Some description of the different heavens is found in 1 Corinthians 15:40, 41 where it speaks of different glories.  All are degrees of glory, but they differ markedly.  Heaven will be available to virtually all people.  I do feel that we will experience differing degrees of anguish because we will realize we could have done better and been in the presence of God the Father (available only to those in the Celestial Kingdom), but all will be blest.


 * Hell is reserved for those who knowingly turn from Jesus Christ as their Savior and choose instead to follow Satan. They do not live by faith, they know that Jesus lives and still reject him and work against the plan of God the Father.  As is evident, this would be a small group in deed.  However, outer darkness, that place where there is a complete absence of light is reserved for them.  This would be our concept of Hell.


 * Sealings. I must have communicated poorly.  There is only one negative sealing I mentioned; that of sealing the rebellious.  It indicates we have done all that we could do to teach the gospel of Christ and the teaching has been soundly rejected.  As I indicated this is not often done.  As mentioned in the New Testament, shaking the dust from off your feet would be a literal demonstration of this form of sealing.  I have never seen this done or performed.  It really does little in the eyes of God, but state we have done all we could do; they are now left on their own to repent or find God.  It is really a sealing of this world and not for the eternities.


 * To be sealed in heaven is to be sealed for the eternities. These Sealings are done between a woman and a man and their children.  Children can be sealed to their parents if they are born prior to the parents being sealed together.  Those individuals who have previously been sealed and then have children are said to have their children “born under the covenant”; the children are already sealed to their parents.  There would be no need for a further sealing.  Storm Rider (talk) 19:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

The D&C says that Mormon missionaries may seal those who will not convert "on earth and in heaven"...I am asking what the difference is between an "earth sealing" and a "heaven sealing" in this context...what are the details...what do they entail?

What I wanted to know about the Mormon concept of heaven, more specifically, is where is it? And, for that matter, where is Hell?

The ordinances, they are performed on those already dead? bcatt 05:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Bcatt, the scripture actually reads (D&C 1:8)
 * And verily I say unto you, that they who go forth, bearing these tidings unto the inhabitants of the earth, to them is power given to seal both on earth and in heaven, the unbelieving and rebellious;
 * Missionaries are not given any power to seal, in the context in which we are speaking, on earth and in heaven. This scripture was given at the very beginning of the church, November 1, 1831.  The only ones who go out into the world to preach that are given the authority to seal on earth and in heaven would be apostles.  Today this might also include the Quorums of Seventy, but I am not certain.  Remember that this type of sealing does two things:  1) it is a statement that we collectively have done all that we could do and still the message was rejected, and 2)  that the person/village/people are sealed over to the judgments of God.  As I indicated earlier, I have never seen this done nor have ever heard of such a sealing take place.  We know that the apostles of NT times talked about it and we assume they practiced/exercised it formally.  My personal interpretation is that this is a rather limited sealing even though it says on earth and in heaven.  The people still have an opportunity to repent.  The Atonement still may be active in their lives.  So what is really accomplished?  I do not know.  If they repented it would be as it the sealing was never done.  However, if they did not repent, then the sealing would condemn them for their stiffneckedness and hard hearts.


 * The details of such a sealing? I interpret your question to ask what a sealing process would look like.  I will share with you what I have experienced; a sealing between a woman and a man?  It is a very short ceremony, approximately 15 minutes.  A Temple sealer, generally an older man that has been properly authorized to function in such matters, just proclaims the two individuals sealed for all time and eternity.  The couple is facing one another while kneeling at an alter and both are dressed in white.  The sealer is likewise dressed in white.  Guests are typically dressed in Sunday clothing:  dresses, suits and ties.  It is a simple ceremony.
 * I suspect that all sealing ceremonies resemble one another as far as the actual sealing. It is a proclamation that something is sealed by proper authority.


 * Heaven’s location The 10th article of faith reads, “We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes; that Zion (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon the American continent; that Christ will reign personally upon the earth; and, that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory.” The Celestial Kingdom will be here on earth.  We believe the earth to be a living entity that will progress through stages much as we hope to progress:  spirit, edenic, telestial, terrestrial, and celestial.  The earth will eventually be where God the Father resides.


 * You may be attempting to refer or have heard the term Kolob. Kolob is the star closest to where God is, but it is not heaven.  Sometimes anti-Mormon literature addresses this concept, but it is often an incorrect of Mormon teaching.  Kolob is acknowledged, but it is not “taught”.  One place where it is mentioned is in Abraham 3:1-4.  There is also one hymn that I mentions it.


 * Hell That part of the spirit world inhabited by wicked spirits who are awaiting the eventual day of their resurrection is called hell. Between their death and resurrection, these souls of the wicked are cast out into outer darkness, into the gloomy depression of sheol, into the hades of waiting wicked spirits, into hell. There they suffer the torments of the damned; there they welter in the vengeance of eternal fire; there is found weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth; there the fiery indignation of the wrath of God is poured out upon the wicked. (Alma 40:11-14; D. & C. 76:103-106.)


 * Hell will have an end for the vast majority of individuals. Viewing future events, John saw that "death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works." (Rev. 20:13.) Jacob taught that this escape from death and hell meant the bringing of the body out of the grave and the spirit out of hell. "And this death of which I have spoken, which is the spiritual death," he said, "shall deliver up its dead; which spiritual death is hell; wherefore, death and hell must deliver up their dead, and hell must deliver up its captive spirits, and the grave must deliver up its captive bodies, and the bodies and the spirits of men will be restored one to the other." (2 Ne. 9:10-12.) It was in keeping with this principle for David to receive the promise: "Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell." (Ps 16:10; Acts 2:27.)


 * After their resurrection, the great majority of those who have suffered in hell will pass into the telestial kingdom; the balance, cursed as sons of perdition, will be consigned to partake of endless woe with the devil and his angels. This is the outer darkness that I mentioned in earlier messages.  I have never heard of a location for Hell or outer darkness.


 * Ordinances The ordinances of which I have spoken that are done for those who are dead are done by proxy.  An individual stands in the place of one who is dead.  The dead are then given the opportunity to reject that ordinance or reject it.  LDS believe that ordinances must be accomplished in this mortal life; thus the need for temple work.  The vast majority of temple work accomplished is on behalf of those who are dead.  Storm Rider (talk) 20:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm...I think I will ask someone else who will be more likely to give straight answers. I didn't ask what a man/woman sealing entailed, I asked what a negative sealing entailed and what it looked like. bcatt 20:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * There is no official information available (that I know of) for a negative sealing. I.e. it is not regularly performed, and although some believe it is possible, there is no prescribed ritual like for baptism or other ordinances. In fact, whether or not a negative sealing is even an ordinance is disputed. Few, if any, members of the LDS church have ever seen one and most do not realize that it is theologically possible under LDS doctrine. Trödel&#149; talk 22:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Bcatt, I attempted to be as straight in my answers as possible. I directed you to the NT verses which discussed removing the dust from off of your feet; that is the only way I have ever heard of this type of negative sealing.  Further, I clearly stated this is not directly taught to missionaries and for that matter, to the church at large.  It is simply seldom discussed except for the NT verses.  I was attempting to demonstrate what a sealing process looks like.  I clearly stated that it is a proclamation i.e. an individual in authority declaring that someone is sealed.  There is nothing more to it than that.  LDS people simply have very few things that can be thought of a ritualistic outside of the temples.  I hope you find the answers you are looking for, but I have spoken as directly as possible.


 * I began this whole thread by stating how generous people are when asked questions. Your final response is to accuse me of not giving straight answers.  Do you realize how caustic you are?  Do you realize that what little bit of good will was building between us is all out the window?  I find you to be a wholly disagreeable person; please talk to you doctor and increase your meds.  You have serious behavior issues that are found offensive by all those you come in contact with when you act in this manner.  Good luck in your life; you need it!  Storm Rider (talk) 08:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

You started this thread by congratulating yourself and acting as though you hadn't been an unruly child throughout the whole of the JS discussions. You didn't give straight answers, you did a lot of preaching...possibly thinking that your opportunity had finally come to convert this infidel? I'm caustic? Haha...have you listened to yourself at any time? If good will is lost by my honesty (which is not surprising, considering your aversion to honesty), then so be it. I really don't care much whether you find me agreeable or not, since the only way I would be agreeable to you would be if I were Mormon or eager to become Mormon, or at least made you feel important by asking questions...but I can get my questions answered more directly and candidly by ex-Mormons. I have behaviour issues? Because I am honest? Because I can't help rolling my eyes every time a True Believer starts preaching to me about things that could be answered in a sentence or two or simple, modern language? Again, yu very much need to review the way you speak to every person who does not agree with your narrow and unmoveable views. And, just for your information, there is a very heavy Mormon influence in the cause of my emotional disabilities (which I might point out, are very incredibly eager to attack...not very Christian of you, now is it?)...which pretty much explains why, although I may be disagreeable at times and occasionally lose my reign on "my behaviour", you are disagreeable at all times with any person who presents you with the very slightest challenge and have such egregiously bad social skills as to be incapable of engaging in a civil discussion regarding any view that is not your own. I don't need luck in my life, because I have skill...I would not have survived this far without it. bcatt 09:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

As for meds and psychology...you really should stick to subjects you know something about...you obviously don't have the foggiest idea about these topics. bcatt 09:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You make me laugh out loud. Preaching?  You would not recognize preaching if it hit you smack between the eyes in that ever so thick head of yours.  I quoted specific people to answer your question.  I admitted that the response was lenthy because your questions alluded to many major issues.  I encourage you to ask ex-Mormons, every flipping one of them.  Ask to your black-hearted, heart's content.  Turn purple if you must.  You will not find a straighter or better answer than what I gave you.  In fact, I would enjoy hearing exactly what others say.
 * As far as my understanding of psycholgy, you pencil headed little twit, you don't have the right to making any assumptions of my background or knowledge. Further, you and I both know you need more medication.  You are incapable of hearing anything but those voices in your head.
 * What I am absolutely certain about is how you treat strangers on WIKI must carry over into your personal life. Have you ever stopped to question why you have such a screwed up life?  Why your circle of friends is so limited and without diversity?  It is because you don't take others at their face value, rather you prejudge them and put them into your chosen slots.  Storm Rider (talk) 19:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow, what a great example of how Mormonism is a Christian religion...I'm sure the pope acts just like you! bcatt 23:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and I didn't have to make "assumptions" about your knowledge of psychology...you demonstrated your lack of knowledge by describing personality disorders and then calling it neurosis (which is practically the opposite of the personality disorders you described). I'm indeed neurotic, but the personality disorders you were describing are your own characteristics. Funny, too, that you make assumptions about my personal life which couldn't possibly be further from reality. bcatt 23:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

civility
Regarding Well, a good start would to be to request a 3rd opinion at WP:3O or mediation either formally from the Request for Mediation page, or informally from the cabal, or ask an admin to step in and help. Usually the third option is the most effective. If that doesn't work, consider choosing to file a RfC or RfAR, whichever you think will be more effective. Personally I think you just need a mediator admin to come in and enforce WP:CIVIL. &rArr; <font face="Euclid Fraktur"> SWAT  Jester     Ready    Aim    Fire!  05:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

your user page
Your userpage has a buttload of images. Might want to consider cutting down on a few of them. The server-load would appreciate it. &rArr; <font face="Euclid Fraktur"> SWAT  Jester     Ready    Aim    Fire!  06:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Misuse
Hi Bcatt. I've responded to your notes on my talk page. Your response there has led me to believe this is a deeper problem than what I can help with, as you'll likely never trust me as an admin due to my religious affilation, despite my history. With that said, I've asked four other non-LDS admins who have been wikipedians for a long time (and are trusted, and have built a reputation for helping resolve these sort of conflicts) to step in and help - and to evaluate my personal behavior. I really don't think I've misused any of my powers, and I take this accusation seriously. If you truly feel this way, please let me know, or if it was just a time when you lost your temper, let me know that as well. If others do not agree with your observation, then we'll need to have further discussions. Happy editing. -Visorstuff 22:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't trust you because you have shown that you are influenced by your biases, you misrepresent things to suit you (like saying that because I have userboxes that show honestly what my own biases are, that this means that I am intolerant of other people's biases - when, in fact, I am only intolerant of those who force their biases on other people; or your claim that I don't trust you as an admin "due to your religious affiliation" - I really couldn't care less what your religious affiliation is, but I do care that you let your religious affiliation get in the way of following rules, I would have the same issue with someone with the same beliefs as me acting this way), and you fail to reprimand those with the same beliefs as you put jump down the throat of people if they retaliate (even if they put extreme effort into not retaliating, as in my case), and because you ignore behaviour that deserves blocking by those who hold the same beliefs as you. I am quite sure that if I were to act like Storm Rider, you would block me in an instant. Also, I don't trust you because you have admitted that you and your faction carry on private discussions about things that should be discussed out in the open. No, it was not just "losing my temper", I really do not trust you and do not think you are fit to be an admin. bcatt 02:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Visorstuff's admining
Visorstuff seems to be highly concerned that you've suggested he's acted incorrectly as an admin. At first wink, I see no sign that's he's taken any admin action in the regards to recent disputes, and equally, I see no statement from you (at least in so many words) that he's done so, and so my hope is that there's simply some jangling nerves here on both sides that will in due course be smoothed over. My understanding is that V. is taking part in editing, discussion, and yes, disputes on Joseph Smith, Jr. in his capacity as an editor, and not as an admin, and his conduct should be judged as such. Alai 00:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Can an admin take part in editing as anything but an admin? Can an admin selectively ignore policy violation when it suits them to do so? Let's look at this same thing in other scenarios: can a company manager ignore sexual harrassment because "that time that he was passing through the office, he was passing through in the capacity as a co-worker and not as a manager"? How about the Prime Minister/President? Can a world leader say "when I saw that fraud being carried out I was not acting in the capacity of a world leader"? Can a parent say "when I hit my kid, I was not acting in the capacity of a parent"? If Visorstuff wants to do something on wikipedia "not in the capacity of an admin", should he really be an admin in the first place? bcatt 02:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * So in summary, you have no criticisms to make of his actions as an admin. Rather, you wish to criticise his actions as an editor, and add "as an admin" as a sort of generic intensifier; and to criticise him for inaction as an admin, in an editing dispute he was involved with -- which is ordinarily considered to be poor form, as I'm sure you'd be the first one to point out, had he taken such actions against you.  If you wish admin action to be taken against someone, seek out an uninvolved admin via the normal dispute resolution mechanisms.  The rhetoric above suggests to me that either a) you don't understand the role of wikipedia sysops, or b) are engaging in deliberate hyperbole.  Alai 08:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * So admins are allowed to ignore blatant policy violations just because they want to? What is the point, then, of having specific admins? bcatt 08:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * That does not follow from what I said. If there have been "policy violations", then as I've suggested, report them in the appropriate places.  If none of WP's 800-odd admins see them as such, then perhaps they're less "blatant" than you say.  Using Visorstuff's failure to act "on the spot", in whatever manner you would wish, is not reasonable grounds from criticising him, and doubly so if you've made no attempt to resolve them otherwise.  (In fact, V. doesn't seem to be at all active as regards admin actions, so really I don't see how question of his sysop status even arises.)  Yes, admins are there to enforce policy, but: on a volunteer basis, as is all wikipedia participation, obviously; being one does not preclude someone acting as an editor, otherwise; and consequently, are normally expected not to take admin actions in disputes they're already involved in, for obvious reasons of possible conflicts of interest.  Alai 09:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * No, not "on the spot"...the way it went was that Storm Rider made unceasing personal attacks and I finally lost my temper and retorted, at this point, I am reprimanded and Storm Rider is not. bcatt 09:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * SR does not exactly seem to be the most temperate of the LDS regulars, it must be said. It's perhaps somewhat understandable if V. is not entirely even-handed when it comes to a familiar person he shares some POV with, as against a newcomer, with a strongly opposed one;  and while not ideal, surely doesn't rise to the level of corrupt or incompetent admining.  (And certainly, complaining about/commenting on civility is not the sole province of admins, either.)  Pretty much why admins are not supposed to take admin action in such cases, really...  Alai 09:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Should Visor, as an admin, be allowed to make libelous statements about users? He has done so to me in public, accusing me of lacking integrity and being a "sock puppet". All attempts to silence my NPOV voice here on Wikipedia and protect the holy milktoast, false historical view of JS. Is it appropriate for an admin to use his position to protect the POV of his pet interests on the Wiki? That is exactly what is happening. That is why he is untrustworthy as an admin. Check out the talk page on Joseph Smith Jr. to see the blatant trashing of my name and Bcatt by the mormons involved, inclusing Visor. His comment above on this page about "further discussions" if others don't agree with her clearly smacks of a retributory threat. Bcatt, when you are ready, I will certainly enthusiastically support an RFC on Visor, Storm Rider and all the peanut gallery there that can't see anything but through Urim and Thummim-colored glasses and think the Porter Rockwell method of silencing detractors is the norm here. --FreedominThought 04:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

We need a third signer for RFC. Mormonlicious is the obvious choice, so we should find out if s/he is still around. Alienus is another possibility, though he has not been trashed (that I've noticed), he is still obviously interested in NPOV and appears to be opposed to the behaviour exhibited. Thoughts? bcatt 04:27, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Only two are required. Alai 08:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, I hadn't spotted that before. Nevertheless, I'll stick by my original assessment: he's taken no inappropriate admin actions regarding this, and I don't see that he's here "throwing his weight around" or unduly appealing to adminly status. As his only statement in that capacity was to suggest that you take a wikiholiday, I see no particular issue. If your complaint is that you felt somehow threatened by this suggestion, I'd say it's an extremely subtle one, if it bears that interpretation at all. Personally I'd say that being an admin, and suggesting that someone take a wikiholiday are entirely unconnected, so if you were to claim there was some non sequitur here, I'd be inclined to agree.

As to being "allowed to choose when they want to act as an admin or not", I entirely disagree, I've already explained why, and others have provided policy links to back this contention up. By your logic, if you and Visorstuff are in an editing dispute, and he deems you to have broken some policy in such a way that would indicate a block was appropriate, he not merely may, but must block you himself. I hope you can see why that would be highly problematic. Given that there's a potential conflict of interest between taking editing actions, and admin ones, on the same article, it's essential that admins not be obliged to act as admins all the time. (Which in any case would be infeasible in any volunteer system.) Once again:  if you feel admin actions are required, seek out an uninvolved admin to carry them out. If you're unclear as to the best place to do so, ask someone. Don't demand that involved admins put themselves in the no-win situation of taking such actions directly, as if they're at all wise, they'll decline, and be seen to have acted correctly in declining. Alai 18:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

IP vandal
He doesn't appear connected with any userids; did you have a specific one in mind, that would help narrow it down. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 05:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

WQA
Hi there, while trying to figure out if my wikiquette alert was addressed, I noticed that you had also listed one on a somewhat similar subject. I never heard anything about mine, and I was wondering if I ever will...did anyone get back to you about your alert? Do you have a better idea than me, perhaps, how exactly that process works? Thanks bcatt 08:49, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * No. Wikipedia policy is not enforced.  That's why Wikipedia will never become respected.  Have fun!  -   C.     dentata   [[Image:Chestnut.png|12 px]] 23:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Joseph Smith, Jr. quotation explanation
Hey, I hope that my over-generalized label of you as "critical towards Mormonism" in the explanation wasn't offensive. I had a feeling that even if it was, you wouldn't be lost up in the semantics... I was at a loss of words on how to describe the varying POVs of the editors. I'm not sure if my own self-label as "sympathetic" was accurate either, but, whatever.

On an unrelated note, fun user page. I'd drop an award on for your staggering number of userboxes, but I'm not sure where to fit it in. Tijuana Brass 01:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * No, I didn't find it offensive, so don't worry about it. If you really wish to award my userbox compulsion, feel free to do so on my talk page :D...I am looking at how I can reorganize my userpage and break it down into sections, so anything userpagish left on my talk page can be factored in when I finally get around to doing that...glad you enjoyed it anyway. bcatt 02:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Joseph Smith, Jr.
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Requests for mediation/Joseph Smith, Jr., and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

So what do you think? Something is a little strange. This notice states you have 14 days, but the page itself states 7 days. Why the discrepancy?

I think there are a couple of things missing.

Can NPOV exist in an environment that habitually persecutes it? And I noticed the wording of Visor's allegation was tainted to the "didn't do any admin duties that were bad" POV. It should read -

Did Visorstuff misuse his position of trust as an admininstrator by violating Wikipedia policy and selectively applying Wikipedia policy to editors? --FreedominThought 05:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I actually hadn't realized the discrepancy in time, thanks for pointing that out. And I am otherwise debating how to respond, for many reasons. I have no qualms with mediation in itself, as I have already said on the JS talk page, but I abhor the thought of agreeing to mediation based on misrepresentation of facts and complete fabrications...that would be the same as endorsing said misrepresentations and fabrications as true. I have a personal policy against signing my name to things that are blatantly wrong, especially when their purpose is manipulation and coercion. bcatt 07:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I've added the question from FreedominThought to the mediation list of questions under additional disputes. -Visorstuff 15:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It's all fine and dandy that you added it, but the request is still based on mischaracterization of events, as well as complete fabrications. In case you haven't noticed, Visorstuff, I have a personal policy of being honest, which means I also don't endorse lies. bcatt 18:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to add questions to the issues on the mediation page, if you think I've misrepresented with the nine original questions I suggested. I do think these issues need to be addressed, however, as they have been a current theme in the "edit war." Again, I have no hard feelings for you and I hope that you realize I'm trying to do what is best for Wikipedia. -Visorstuff 19:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Had you been honest on the JS talk page and on user talk pages, I would probably be able to believe that you have an interest in what is best for wikipedia; had you not turned a blind eye to Storm Rider (et. al.)'s egregious violations then reprimanded me for something that was perfectly understandable under the circumstances, then I'd probably believe it; if you had filed the request on an honest basis rather than to further your own agenda, I'd believe it. But you didn't, so I don't. I will sign an honest request for mediation, but I will not sign a lie. bcatt 19:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, I'm sorry you feel I've been dishonest - I have not tried to, and do value my integrity. My intentions are pure to further this. We are at stalemate on the page, and outside help is needed. What can I change on the Requests_for_mediation that will make it more honest? What specifically do you feel I've misrepresented in the medation request? I've only listed my issues and asked my questions that I'd like addressed, and as a party involved, and it is your responsibility to list the issues you have on the request for mediation - per the notice above (as only my questions have been addressed, not any of yours, aside from the addition from above). I do hope you add in your questions and requests to the request for mediation. -Visorstuff 00:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't see that, and I am under no obligation to assume good faith when you have shown that you are acting in bad faith. Furthermore, I don't see that the page is at a stalemate, outside help has arrived and is in full swing...discussion is particularly productive without Storm Rider around to work at derailing it. By the way, it's very "cute" how you are trying to blame me for the level of conflict, when it was very clearly caused intentionally by Storm Rider and now that he is gone, things are incredibly more civil...aside from the fact that you are now taking over in trying to stir up trouble. bcatt 09:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Bcatt, I'm sorry, could you answer the question above? Specificically, "What can I change on the Requests_for_mediation that will make it more honest? What specifically do you feel I've misrepresented in the medation request?" Look forward to your response. -Visorstuff 17:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I noticed you haven't edited since the 26th. Hope you are okay. All of the other active Wikipedians involved in the dispute aside from yourself and User:Freedominthought have agreed to participate in the mediation. Only 11 of the 21 are LDS - hopefully this demonstrates that the page's issues are important enough to be resolved though this means, regardless of religious belief. If you have additional issues, I hope you will add them to the mediation request.


 * Please understand I place no blame solely on you. I take some responsibility, and others are equally to blame as well - in this case it took many editors to get to this unfortunate point, not just one or two - and we'll need to have these issues decided upon before moving too much more forward. Since the 21 of us can't come to agreement, we need outside help on specific issues (listed in the mediation request). Also, I have no other agenda other than what is stated on the mediation request. I do hope you can assume good faith with me someday.


 * I look forward to your answer to the question above about the request. -Visorstuff 22:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Censorship
A revised version of the proposed policy against censorship is now open for voting. Will you kindly review the policy and make your opinions known? Thank you very much. Loom91 11:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Category:Self-contradictory articles
Hello, Bcatt. I was wondering if you would modify your user page so that it does not appear in Category:Self-contradictory articles. To do this and keep the template, replace Contradict with the following code (don't use the nowikis that you can see when editing this page, they are there so you can see the code).

Thanks, Kjkolb 21:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject South Park
I have thought of creating a WikiProject for South Park since it is now near its' 10th anniversary and has more articles than ever. I feel we could all do the following things through this project: I have seen your South Park fan template and wondered if you were interested in joining. If so reply to my talk page and I'll get back to you as quick as I can. Thanks, Mr. Garrison
 * Cleanup any short/poorly written/unformatted articles
 * Merge/lengthen the many character articles
 * Improve the South Park main page