User talk:Hawstom/Archive4

The crazy one
Hello, I am the crazy one who came up with the voting system at the bottom of Talk:Hubbert Peak, but I would like you to know, I have created a project page, which will eventually be renamed. That said, I invite you and others to join the project and begin editing the page, I started the page, but there has to be active discussion about the contents There still are the talk pages, to-do list, review board pages, and forums to set up. I invite you to come along and help at: WikiProject Energy Related Development by Civilizations. Ignore the inuse sign, thats just a greeting. Since you have been around here quite a while, I especially want your input if possible. -- 19:43, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC) <--Have to fix this.

Watchtower NPOV
Tom,

Greetings and salutations! Two individuals are having difficulty agreeing on some content on the Watchtower page. (JW mag) could you please provide some assistance? I am sure your illustrious presence would be of great benefit. george 14:44, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Tom,

I just wanted to thank you for your reasonableness on the Watchtower page and for helping us to refocus on NPOV. Your opinions and experience have been very valuable. cairoi 17:40, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I see!
Welcome to Wikipedia anyway! :)) Take a quick look at my TalkPage. I will leave it there. 8)))) ---Rednblu | Talk 07:21, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

JW section deleted due to slant
Tom, on Dec 27, 2004 you wrote:


 * And to the JW's a merry life! I really reaaaallly really think the content of the  above needs to be in this article.  Can somebody edit it to be more sympathetic and positive and add it back in? Tom - Talk 18:20, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

I wrote a detailed commentary in reference to the content in question. Did you ever read it? As far as I can tell you never responded. I'd hate to think I took all that time to address your request for nothing. Just in case I've pasted my commentary below. Cheers, --DannyMuse 08:17, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Tom, no can do. This content is really problematic. What isn't wrong is poorly worded. The little bit that is left is already in the article and/or linked articles!!!


 * But in the spirit of full-disclosure, here's a point-by-point for you:


 * TEXT: The local congregation of Jehovah Witnesses most often seen in an [sic] neighbourhood is called a Kingdom Hall.


 * COMMENT: Kingdom Halls are buildings, congregations are made up of people. Poor wording aside, these points are already covered. In addition to the references to Kingdom Halls in the various articles related to JWs, there is even a separate article for just this subject! (See linked article). There is a nice description of Congregations in the Organizational structure of Jehovah's Witnesses article.


 * TEXT: The main governing Body of Jehovah [sic] Witnesses with "absolute power" is Headquartered in Brooklyn, New York.


 * COMMENT: The worldwide headquarters of Jehovah's Witnesses IS in Brooklyn, NY. There is a nice description of the Governing Body in the Organizational structure of Jehovah's Witnesses article. That "absolute power" stuff is nonsense. Only God has absolute power. One can only guess at what this is supposed to mean. I don't guess.


 * TEXT: This is called the Watchtower".


 * COMMENT: What is the "This" to which the editor is referring? None of the nouns in the previous sentence are called "Watchtower" by JWs.


 * TEXT: Their governing Body is lead by a president and a group of men known as "The Governing Body".


 * COMMENT: Besides the fact that this sentence is confusingly worded it's also not accurate. Only legal entities have presidents. Again, I refer you to the description of the Governing Body in the Organizational structure of Jehovah's Witnesses article. Also see the Legal instruments subsection in the same article.


 * TEXT: This group oversees every aspect of the organization including the material that is written for the periodicals and the study books.


 * COMMENT: This is more-or-less true and is approximately how it is already described under the Governing Body section of the Organizational structure of Jehovah's Witnesses article. Are you noticing a trend here?


 * TEXT: "The Watchtower" claim that they are an organization directed by God.


 * COMMENT: Strictly speaking, The Watchtower is a magazine. Last time I checked, inanimate objects can neither make claims nor are they "an organization". If the editor meant the "The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society" (WTB&TS) then he should have said so. But then he'd still be wrong. The WTB&TS is one of several corporations (legal instruments) that are in use by Jehovah's Witnesses. They deal with legal issues and represent the interests of the religious organization.


 * Worldwide, Jehovah's Witnesses are called "Jehovah's Witnesses" in their local language. This worldwide Christian religion does claim that they are an organization directed by God. This point is implied in the first sentence of the intro to the main JW article. Perhaps it could be more explicitly stated somewhere. Suggestions?


 * TEXT: Since 1931, the name for Jehovah Witnesses has been officially "The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society".


 * COMMENT: No, since 1931, the name for Jehovah Witnesses has been "Jehovah Witnesses". This point is already made in the Origins section of the main JW article. In every country and land on earth we are known by that name in the local language. The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania was founded in 1881. So we have some serious date confusion here!


 * TEXT: Some refer to it as just "the Society".


 * COMMENT: This is true, but it is a relatively unimportant bit of JW slang. Is it really appropriate to an encyclopedic entry? I think not.


 * TEXT: Their legal name is: the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania.


 * COMMENT: Similar to points discussed above. This point and related topics are more fully and accurately discussed in both the Legal instruments of Jehovah's Witnesses and Organizational structure of Jehovah's Witnesses articles.


 * So when you sort through it all there are only two new points for possible addition to the article:


 * 1 - JWs claim that they are an organization directed by God.
 * 2 - JWs refer to the WTB&TS as "the Society" for short.


 * Again, I think the first point is already implicit in the article, but if you (or anyone else) think it's worthy of inclusion, then I'm all for it. (Don't most religions believe they are directed by God?) Where would you place it in the article and how should it be worded? Regarding the second point, as it is just a JW nickname for the WTB&TS, I don't see that it warrants inclusion in any of the WP articles. I have no objection to it, just don't see a reason for it.


 * I'm not trying to bite the newbies, or any other contributor for that matter. But if someone wants to add something, then they should have something to add, not just a re-hash of existing content thoughtlessly inserted whereever their cursor happens to land. Also, it should be accurate and meaningful. Finally, some thought to clarity of wording would be nice. I hope this helps! Oh, and thanks for the wishes for a merry life; sending the same back at you!!! --DannyMuse 19:19, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Tom, yeah thanks for deleting that inane comment of mine. Pretty childish. The "discussion" on the JW talk page has really degenerated, sorry to have contributed. Not one of my finer moments. --DannyMuse 15:20, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Credibility
Tom, about Wikipedia Credibility struggle: I guess you mean my ideas for approval mechanisms? It doesn't seem like the idea of approval mechanisms in general has enough momentum to go anywhere anytime soon.

But very tangential idea, which I haven't done myself yet, might be reviewing featured articles to see whether they are all still worthy. Maurreen 06:04, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Can you let me know if you get a response from Jimbo 00:40, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I just found this page Wikipedia 1.0 and it has some recent discussions on credibility. Maurreen above is a contributor at times Trödel| talk 17:40, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree that there is too much process for my tastes there - I like the idea of stable articles being moved to a status where changes don't take place immediately and where there would be a "Premium Watchlist" for those pages. I also think that the user trust model needs to incorporate reduction of vandals through the use of uniqu IDs for AOL and other anonymizing IP services through the use of a cookie - no one knows your name but you are a unique user and responsible for your actions. Trödel| talk 19:51, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

User trust proposal
Hi. If your proposal came up for a vote, I wouldn't vote against it. But I do see a couple of problems. One is the technical requirements. The fact that any technical changes are needed means that strong momentum would be required for this to happen. Another is that the hierarchy you describe (from anon to developer) is not tied only to trust. Maurreen 18:33, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Good luck, Tom. Maurreen 06:18, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I very much like this proposal. The problem I have seen is that controversial topics get a concensus and then later when the participants are not as active one POV creeps back in over time (or all at once). -Trodel 06:43, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the update - I saw the note on the Mailing list and started reading today during lunch - but will have to do it tonight after my Homeowner's Association Meeting. Trödel| talk 23:09, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Rename of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
Can you please support the rename and requested move to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter=day Saints Requested moves Thx in Adv --Trodel 06:32, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your two cents - the fact that the target page of the rename is just a redirect makes me even more jaded about the process for the move. I know that the community is very much stare decisis based, but it seems some are good at creating a history that justifies their position beyond the true one person one vote kind of rule that would make sense. And the allegation against me personally - that have gone unresponded when I asked for clarification - supports my thesis that it was motivated to make me look like I was cheating when I wasn't.

I will be using the redirect page per your suggestion (assuming that is not anti-wiki) and update the style guide accordingly but was hoping for at least a couple comments before I did.

Thanks again Trödel 23:32, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC) PS - I agree the fight is just not worth it.

Don't worry I won' get too jaded to contribute or become a Missing Wikipedians - just having my eyes opened a little. Trödel 16:15, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oil Alternatives vs. Energy Development
You recently asked for my input regarding discussion on Hubbert Peak. Firstly I haven't read all the details already discussed here. From what I can gather you are correct. Energy development is a good entry and more appropriate. Oil alternatives is misleading because it suggests there is an alternative when all things indicate there is no alternative. It is cheap oil and gas that allows people to over-exploit other resources including other energy sources. People rarely consider the net energy inputs that are needed for non-conventional or renewable energy sources. Renewable energy is another bad term since energy is never replaced only degraded to lower forms. Maybe any discussion of oil alternatives should go on the oil or hubbert peak pages. --Shiftchange 03:42, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Reverts on Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
I take your point on that, and I had a moment's thought on it at the time. Butb on balance I felt that it was sufficiently badly written, and so overwhelmingly POV, that "revert first, salvage later" (since the material is still in any case accessible) was the speedier and better thing to do for the sake of article quality integrated over time... I'll be sure to keep an eye on myself, though. Alai 17:49, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

JW page protected
Excuse me tom, If you look at the talk page Polemotheos has stepped out of the arena. I feel kind of bad about it because I was so pushy. I should have helped him out instead of fighting but, the page can probably be unprotected now. george 18:01, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Practices of Jehovah's Witnesses
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Visorstuff"

To give Tom some distance would mind giving some input to the Disfellowshipping discussion? Say, "Thank you Tom, for getting me into this!" :-) george 18:41, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Future of the LDSM project
We need to do lunch. Can we meet halfway to wherever you work? I think it is getting close to time to find some way for project members to get together real time outside of the talk pages (in person or on a call or chat) to talk about the direction of the project. The project has been cited as both a "mess" and an "good example" but we are still too POV. Can you bring this up on the project page too? I'm not suggesting a Project Symposium, but rather some time to do some good solid planning. Also, we need more non-LDS editors like Alai - their perspective is crucial to us in the future direction of the project. Perhaps during lunch we could hand pick some we'd liek to see join? I'll shoot you an email as well. -Visorstuff 19:16, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I left Wesley a note. -Visorstuff 17:54, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Black History
It doesn't appear that "Black History" is a category, and I was wondering if one should exist. I've been reading a book on the Underground Railroad, and have been amazed at how little I knew about it. Also, on NPR there was a show that talked about how little Black History is talked about, even during so-called Black History month (Feb). It seems to me that at least it should be a category to allow people to browse the topic. What do you think? How would I go about getting such a category created? What are the chances of it actually happening? Why is the sky blue? ;^) I'm sure I could have gone through "official" channels to figure out how to formally request it, but thought I would get a reality check from someone I knew.  Thanks!  wrp103 (Bill Pringle)  - Talk 20:03, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Mormons
Thanks for contacting me on my Talk page. I am fully aware that there are no connections between Quakers and Mormons (they are very very different); my edit was to show that both Mennonites and Quakers are pacific faiths, whereas Mormons do not embrace pacifism as a main core of their faith. If you believe that my edit muddies the water, please go right ahead and revert them or edit them to make them more clear. I'm going to take another look at what I wrote and see if I can clean it up. Thanks MicahMN | Talk 20:19, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Excellent point on the enumeration of things that are different between the groups. I was sort of thinking that explaining that there is the peace churches link between Quakers and Mennonites, that Mormons really don't fall into that category. I just thought that this would be the place to point out how completely different Mormons are from Quakers and Mennonites. You do make a good point, at what point do we stop? It is really an apples and oranges thing. Please feel free to edit it in the way you see fit. Frankly, I think that section needs to be completely re-written if you are up to the task. Cheers MicahMN | Talk 01:01, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Deseret alphabet
Need some intervention at Talk:Deseret_alphabet. We are having a definition problem. -Visorstuff 01:13, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Links for Newcomers
Do you have a set of links or a welcome message premade for giving to newcomers - I am helping out a buddy and searched for newcomer links but got so many hits I just didn't have the bandwidth to sort through them. TIA Trödel| talk 19:04, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Trödel| talk 02:04, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comment on structure for Leadership callings Hi - I have set up a sample article on Bishops with a little bit of different format and was wondering if I could get some early feedback as to direction. Thx - Jim Trödel| talk 16:16, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Project Box
You mention that you are don't understand perfectly what I mean by proposing to maintain the project box. Since you are a more seasoned Wikipedian than me - I just want to make sure I understand what I am getting myself into. What questions do you have, or what do you think that volunteering to maintain the project box means. TIA Trödel| talk 11:24, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation - I like the technical aspects of Mediawiki - the idea of the technology is so cool. Basically, the project box that appears at the top right of WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement can appear on any page by including the following (where vertically you want the task list to appear). Basically I am volunteering to keep that box up to date so that those that are working actively on the project can just monitor the project box for changes and requests rather than having to keep up with everything that is going on at the Project and Project talk pages. To include the box on any page on en.wikipedia.org just copy and paste the text in the box below onto the page you want to put it on (I put it at the top of this section so you could see it. Let me know if you need anything else).

I was thinking that you and I could coordinate so that if there are things that are of general concern they should get into the project box (plus I will watch for things that need to be added myself). If people that you are working with to make sure all topics on Mormonism get watched by someone (watchlist coverage) find an issue that needs broader attention and discussion I would add it to the project box. Let me know what you think Trödel| talk 22:22, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Vote comments
Every vote I've ever taken part in has had a section, or the option of creating a section, on the same page as the vote for comments relating to the vote. We should not break with tradition on project pages, and anyway it exposes more people to the relevant issues before they vote hastily. zen master   T  06:29, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Priesthood Correlation Program
Just made major revisions to Priesthood Correlation Program. Needs cleaning up - can you provide a second set of eyes? -Visorstuff 18:54, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

How bad was it after your first pass? Still needs work in my opinion, and it doesn't read very encyclopedic (tried to get a lot of examples so ya'll could see where I was going). Let me know if you get a chance, as i'm a bit dissapointed in my own work. -Visorstuff 23:06, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Anon Edits
or as you titled it The proper care and feeding of anons

Because I often don't have time to give an anon the proper care I created the template referenced above. You would use it by copying this text into the users talk page: or. I was hoping to get participants in the Latter Day Saint movement to use this when they revert edits. Can you add some comments there. Thx Trödel| talk 02:05, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Your suggestion, re: 74s181 sandbox and the Mormonism and Christianity article
I've tried to implement your suggestion on setting up a sandbox. I'd appreciate it if you could take a moment to look at it and see if I've set this up the right way, it is at User:74s181/Sandbox/Mormonism and Christianity.

Hi
Hi! Sorry for the delay, thanks for your comments and it's nice to make your acquaintance as well. I like your ideas at User:Hawstom/Wikipedia reputation, but I'll have to reread them when I'm less tired before I could make any coherent comments ;-) Cheers, &mdash; Matt Crypto 07:19, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

List of purported cults
Tom, I admit to being sceptical at first about the taxonomy that you proposed on Talk:List of purported cults. But on reflection, and after adding dozens of cites for seven sources, I have come to believe that it is a good way of arranging the list. I did a fresh "sample run" and the groups fell into a fairly logical order. OK, so some should probably be removed entirely or treated separately, in particular Kim Jong Il (cult of personality) and Amway, Herbalife, etc (MLMs). And some groups need additional reference to be added in order to move them to the more correct tier. But it makes sense. While I've participated in expanding the taxonomy to 8 levels for discussion purposes, I expect that those can be conflated to perhaps three or four in the article itself. Anyway, thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Cheers, -Willmcw 11:14, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

Human
Tom, I have written a compromise version of the introduction, which retains that we are bipedal primates and great apes, but which also includes a reference to narratives about evolution on the one hand, and creation by a supreme being and possession of souls on the other. It is here. Your views would be most welcome. I also want to apologize if I have given the impression of seeming to dismiss your beliefs and concerns. That was not my intention, though reading over some of my posts, I fear I may have appeared to intend it. I am sorry. I hope the compromise suggestion may help to move things forward. Best, SlimVirgin 18:56, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

List of purported cults
Tom, we need your NPOV magic at List of purported cults. Thanks. --Zappaz 00:22, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the useful comments, Tom. The article was placed on RfC yesterday. It will be nice if you could comment below the RfC summary and address the questions there. Talk:List_of_purported_cults. --Zappaz 19:56, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Human "spirituality"! Would you believe it?
[Evolution as "fact"?] Wow! You are an insightful guy, Red. Hats off to you. Someday you and I ought to have a good discussion about this. But I fear I may not be much of a creationist, despite my burning spiritual reality. Heaven, yes. Spirit, yes. Eternity, yes. Creation, what do you mean when you say that? It's a loaded word. Tom Haws 06:44, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * 8)) You are very generous.  These are very interesting times, are they not?  I have been intrigued by the recent bigotry against "spirituality" on the Human page.  I guess each of us individually has a different route to discovering what is true.  I myself am discovering what a revolting and counter-intuitive concept NPOV is--particularly for those people who know in their heart with certainty unquestioned that Religion is wrong.  8))  ---Rednblu | Talk 12:00, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Hope you two don't mind if I butt in here. Actually Rednblu, I think that NPOV is an unsurpassingly beautiful concept. It's just not being followed on the Talk:Human page. --Goethean 20:15, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, hello, Goethean. Good to have you in all of the conversations on the many pages.  8))  I guess I wrote carelessly above without thinking enough how it would "sound."  I agree wholeheartedly with you--that 1) NPOV is an unsurpassingly beautiful concept and 2) NPOV is not being followed on the Talk:Human page.  The rest of what I said has some faulty Boolean logic.  8))  As you point out, obviously some people "who know in their heart with certainty unquestioned that Religion is wrong" are insisting that NPOV in its unsurpassingly beauty should be respected.  Would you agree?  ---Rednblu | Talk 00:11, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I think Rednblu's comment is a masterpiece, but it includes a lot of inside assumptions. Here is my commentary on what I think was a multi-faceted remark. 1) He, for one, is an atheist who "knows in heart with certainty unquestioned that religion is wrong". 2) At a gut level, he is discovering about how revolting (threatening?) NPOV can be when a person like him really immerses himself into arguing for the enemy.  3) From a detached level, he is preaching against those editors who refuse to immerse themselve in the unsurpassed beauty of NPOV as he has (and in this I am his inferior most certainly).  5) His remark in its whole says exactly what you, Goethean, said in a few words, that NPOV is a unsurpassedly beautiful concept.  But he goes further.  He suggests it has the fearsome power to change the human heart.  His remark is a keeper.  Tom Haws 19:52, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * Hence the bitter resistance on Talk:Human. Interesting. --Goethean 20:01, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Anon Welcome
Hi Tom - sorry I was out for a bit. I setup the LDS Welcome template for those that we have to reverse their edits. To use it all you need to do is type: Of course replace the page name reverted with the title of the actual page reverted and the Hawstom is the username for the person leaving the message so anyone can use it. Let me know if you have any other questions. Have a good day Trödel| talk 15:05, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You might look in on the conversation I am initiating at User talk:SlimVirgin
I am opening a gentle conversation on the User talk:SlimVirgin page. In my opinion, all of the personal questions are irrelevant. The real issue is the wide disparity of views of what NPOV actually means in practice--such as on the Human page. What do you think? ---Rednblu | Talk 23:22, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * That sounds fair. And valuable.  Tom Haws 03:40, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

The discussion is taking place on the User:SlimVirgin/Human page. ---Rednblu | Talk 01:55, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * The page is gone. Tom Haws 17:47, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry. You can visit the page on Deletion log at the entry for 23:56, 29 Mar 2005. Probably, the discussion should be in a more public arena anyway, such as on the NPOV page and on the No Original Research page. What do you think? ---Rednblu | Talk 18:10, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, of course. Tom Haws 19:31, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Vegasbright
I've opened up a can of worms there, haven't I? That is fine. I was suprised at the disconnect on what I thought I was saying and how he interpreted it. I'll likely clean up his edits later this week, but don't think I'll respond much more to the editor at this point. Perhaps sporatically. Thoughts? -Visorstuff 20:57, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Disconnected thoughts:
 * This editor is a well-connected classic exmo, and if well groomed, could represent the beginning of a new resource for Wikipedia.
 * Has a hard time relating positively to TBMs, and sees you and me first as TBMs at this time. Only seasoning will allow him to see us wearing squarely our Wikipedia system administrator caps with the intersts of Wikipedia firmly in mind.
 * There must be at least some validity to his POV, but he needs to check it with other non-LDS editors.
 * Our edits are antagonizing him at this time, and I think both you and I should resolve not to touch his edits anymore. And this leads to a general principle.  When anons and new users show up with POVs we need to incorporate, but who are unfamiliar with our policies, we need to limit severely the number of times we personally edit them, similar to the 3 revert rule.  In this case, such a policy would have avoided Vegasbright's perception that you or I are on a personal POV campaign.  And in Vegasbright's future (should he continue) here, you and I should stand back for a good long while and urge other LDS editors to do the same.
 * -Tom Haws 15:59, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Completely agree. He could be a great source, but needs to show NPOV. In addition, his edits are sloppier than mine - spelling errors, disconnected thoughts and inferences where there is none to be made. For example, at Common_Latter-day_Saint_perceptions, Vegasbright wrote: "This continuing revelation is cited when massive doctrinal changes such as the temple endowment initiatory that took place on January 16'th, 2005." I hardly see the changes as "massive doctrinal changes," but rather a shift in how the ordinance is carried out - someone who hadn't been to do initiatories for over a year may not even notice the changes. And then there is the grammatical issues with the sentence. The sentence leads readers to believe that "temple endowment initiatory" is the change, not that there were changes to those ordinances. Again, his interpretation of official doctrines and polytheism is from a historical perspective, and I can understand many members of the Church being confused with that - so from cultural perspective it is fine. That said, I really like how he is discussing LDS culture. We have not addressed that yet, and should encourage it - as you say it is an untapped resource.

I really hope he talks to other editors about how his edits are being perceived. I think he is doing his "arguments" an unjustice by using such POV words. You are right, not touching his edits will help - and let the reader see it for what it is, as it is that obvious.

I know I tend to be cocky. I really need to cool off. Perhaps I'll go back to finishing my Hypocephalus article. I left one additional message for VB today - and will continue to dialoge with him as he requests, but will not go into the weeds with him. I hope he does help with the project, but from a less proselytory standpoint. -Visorstuff 17:04, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * What? The temple initiatory changed?  That does it; I am going to the Baha'i.  Or maybe I will just go to the temple and see.  p.s. I'm glad we are in agreement. p.p.s.  I said Wikipedia; in the exmo context should I have said the Worg? p.p.p.s.  Nice olive leaf to VB.  I hope he accepts.  Tom Haws 17:24, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Also, nice to know that he seems to get in heated exchanges with more than just Mormons - he's been critical of Anti-Mormons as well. I just hope we can work with him in a constructive manner to improve Wikipedia. Hope he accepts too. -Visorstuff 19:13, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Columbia SEAS.GIF
Image:Columbia SEAS.GIF is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 02:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)