User talk:James H. Jenkins/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question and then place  before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

I see no one gave you the standard welcome message yet. But you seem to have gotten off to a good start. Good work on Beaver Island and Strang. Very interesting period in Michigan. Cheers. older ≠ wiser 01:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Mentone and Loving County, Texas
I was glad to help out. One of the best things about the collaborative nature of Wikipedia is that we improve on each others' efforts. If you're not sure how to format something, someone will come up behind you and fix it. Let me know if you have any questions about the project, or if you need any help. Cheers, Caknuck 17:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

James Strang article
Good job on the James Strang article. I had rated the July 1, 2007 version Start class. It's much improved since then.

You asked for ideas for further improvement. The first thing I would do is make sure that there is no question of verifiability. That's the first criteria in a Good Article review. I'd add inline citations to every statement that provides a quote, a number (e.g., the number of current adherents), anything that could possibly be construed as original research or opinion. That sort of thing. It allows the reader to find the specific source for the statement or claim or whatever.

After that, you can nominate it for GA review. I think it's good enough for a review. It seems well-written, but that's not really my strong point. There are other editors that do a great job finding grammatical errors, run-on sentences, and that stuff. I'm not one of those people. --Elliskev 16:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Very nice. I like it. as I said, I'm not the guy to look to for Good Article level feedback, but I think it's very good. I really appreciate links to sources throughout an article. The rest can be left up to the GA squad. They do a very good job of raising the bar.


 * I'm with you in thinking that James Strang is a worthy featured article. It's one of those things in our history that is easily left on the sidelines. Good work! Nominate it. --Elliskev 00:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Golden plates
Thanks for the addition to Golden plates. Because this is being considered as an FA, could you please provide a citation for the full sentence you added?--John Foxe 14:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for writing! I got two references in there for you on Strang: one for his "Voree plates," and one for his "Book of the Law of the Lord."  For some reason, the list of references shown at the bottom of the article doesn't seem to go past #145; mine were somewhere in the 160's--but I did get them in there for you.


 * I've been working on editing and expanding the Wikipedia articles for Voree Plates and Laban (Book of Mormon) recently, and I'm hoping to work on the article for Book of the Law of the Lord soon. I've also been working on an article about James Strang himself for some time now, and hope to get it approved for "GA" status soon.  Best of luck on your endeavors, and I hope to see this article in the "Featured" section soon!! --Ecjmartin 15:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I appreciate it.--John Foxe 18:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations, GA passed !
-- Feel free to add that to your userpage if you wish. Great job on the article! If you haven't already done so, consider helping out with a review at WP:GAC. I am going to make a habit myself of trying to review at least one Good Article Candidate for each one I nominate. Cheers. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 05:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC).

James Strang
Hi. I noticed that the fn links aren't working. I think it might be that the template doesn't like the parentheses. Nice work getting it to GA status. --Elliskev 00:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, fn appears to be deprecated. --Elliskev 00:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for bringing this to my attention. I got the parentheses removed, and the footnotes are working now.  I'll have to look into the depreciation thing, but for now, at least they are working again.  Thanks again! - Ecjmartin 03:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Strang1.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Strang1.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 21:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Strang, again
I think it's ready to be a FA candidate. I'm going to nominate it. --Elliskev 01:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Done --Elliskev 01:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)-
 * Thanks so much for your vote of confidence on the Strang article--and for all of your help in the past on it. I'm looking forward to seeing what transpires.  Thanks again!! -- Ecjmartin 01:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry about my not checking with you first. I thought I knew what I was doing... Live and learn. However, I think it should pass. --Elliskev 23:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I sincerely hope so. I got some feedback from one reviewer, who suggested he might support it if I combo'd some of the shorter paragraphs (he thought there were too many short para's in the article).  I took his advice, and invited him to check out what I managed to do and get back with me on it.  Hopefully, he (and the other reviewers) will like it better.  Thanks again for all your help, and for nominating this article! - Ecjmartin 02:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Plates.jpg
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Plates.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Jusjih (talk) 04:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I hereby acknowledge your message, but I prefer to leave the deletion to another disinterested admin who can check OTRS. I have no access.--Jusjih (talk) 02:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If the OTRS does have your forwarded email with GFDL permission, it cannot be revoked when the copyright holder, Mr. Terry Pepper, voluntarily granted the license. As I cannot access OTRS, I cannot speedily delete it per your request.--Jusjih (talk) 03:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. Mr. Pepper was contacted directly by Wikipedia because the original permission form I emailed him was ruled deficient.  Mr. Pepper later informed me he had declined to give permission due to his unwillingness to allow others to take his image from Wikipedia and use it without his permission.  I'm not sure if this will help, but I hope so.  Merry Christmas! - Ecjmartin 13:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Charismatic Wikipedians
I've proposed to rename the user category Category:Charismatic Wikipedians. Since you are listed a member, you may be interested in participating in the discussion.--Tikiwont (talk) 13:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Punctuation in quotations
Hi! I'm contacting you here because I noticed, from your edits to the article Seraphim Rose, that you use the typesetters' quotation style, i.e., you place punctuations inside quotes. I just wanted to point out that this violates the Manual of Style (see WP:PUNC for details), and as such other editors end up having to correct these quotes. As the above linked page explains, "Wikipedia uses logical quotation", i.e., punctuation outside the quotes, as I'm doing here, "because, as an encyclopedia, it requires high standards of accuracy in the use of source material, and because logical quotation is less prone to misquotation, ambiguity, and the introduction of coding and other errors." Thus, I'd recommend you to edit using the logical style yourself, since this would help other editors not having to correct the quotes afterwards.

Please understand that this isn't a criticism towards either the typesetters' style or the fact you're used to them. It's just that, in Wikipedia, they do no good, and I think the more people who are aware of this, the better.

Thanks in advance for your comprehension! -- alexgieg (talk) 15:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you!Ecjmartin (talk) 03:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

George Todd
No problem, thanks for creating the page, it was one of those that has been needed, but my distaste to his particular character has made me less than enthusiastic about authoring it (with so many other worthy names North/South still waiting for a page.) There is quite a bit that should be added to it eventually. Todd was considered one of the cruellest even among Quantrill's bunch. (I believe he also took over for a time didn't he?) I've seen local Missouri histories referring to mutilations and scalpings by Todd.

In the presently short placeholder paragraph in the bio about Todd at Lawrence it should be mentioned that he was blamed for killing/murdering of General Sam Curtis' son (an officer working with Blunt) during the raid. Since he killed pretty much everyone he captured it is likely that murder is the accurate descriptor, but I would need to check some sources for verification. Red Harvest (talk) 05:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Excellent work!
You also seem like one heck of an interesting person. I hope to run into you around WP a lot more! Prince of Canadat 03:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you, sir! I deeply appreciate your kudos, and your kind words (and the award doesn't hurt my feelings, either!).  Sorry; I was in a bit of a hurry when I replied, and I failed to read your talk page section asking me to reply to your message here, rather than there.  So I do apologize for that!  Thanks again!  Cheers! - Ecjmartin (talk) 03:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Not a problem :) it's richly-deserved.. seriously, it's a minority of editors who take criticism of an article as impetus to improve the article to the best of their ability.  May this be the first of many more for you!  (Also, since it's within the sphere of what I'm interested in, I'd be happy to give an unnofficial GA review before you resubmit). Prince of Canadat 03:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Absolutely! I'd deeply appreciate that!  I'll let you know when I get it done; hopefully within the next few days, if possible.  BTW, you look like a pretty interesting person, yourself.... - Ecjmartin (talk) 03:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I have two words for you: Holy. Crap. You set a hell of a standard for hard work! I have a change or two I'm going to make immediately; per the MOS, code for images should be placed within the section the image belongs in.  The place you have it in now doesn't guarantee that the image will render correctly at all browser/screen resolutions.  I'll go over the article in detail starting within the next hour or so.  Seriously.. amazing, amazing work. Prince of Canadat 02:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Looking forward to hearing from you on it soon! - Ecjmartin (talk) 02:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome! Adding: first images in sections should be at the top of the section, immediately after any dablinks/seealso/etc and before any text, and should be right-aligned. Second, when specifying 'thumb' as an image attribute, size should generally not be specified, as users may adjust preferred thumbnail size in their preferences. I'm also going to convert the refs to using the cite web/book/etc templates, as they're tidier and easier to update. Prince of Canadat 02:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much! Reference formatting isn't my strong suit, so I'd appreciate any help you can give there (and anywhere else), for sure! - Ecjmartin (talk) 02:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome. I can't remember if you have to set this in your preferences, but when I edit I see a toolbar above the edit box. The far-right button looks like CITEundefined, and when clicked it pops open a dialogue allowing you to choose the correct citation template, followed by the fields that need to be filled in.  I'm happy to go through those, no worries; just a note for the future.
 * One thing I would suggest is having a section entitled 'Coronations in the modern era' as a level 2 heading ( ==Title== ), then the regions as H3 ( ===Title=== ), and the individual countries not as headers, but using ';' before each one to have them display as titles without appearing in the TOC.
 * This way, the box would look:


 * To my eyes (and please! feel free to disagree) the TOC is too long and somewhat difficult to read. Prince of Canadat 02:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Let me take a look at that in the morning, as I'm going to be shutting down for the night. Sounds like a good suggestion; I can definitely understand about the length of the TOC list.  If you want to go ahead and set it up that way this evening, please feel free.  Otherwise, I'll look into it in the morning.  Thanks again! - Ecjmartin (talk) 03:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Got back up for a moment; thanks SO much for the reformatting job--I agree with you that it looks much better now! I moved the UK and Vatican articles further down in the Europe section, so they would be in alphabetical order within that section.  Thanks again! - Ecjmartin (talk) 03:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Coronation
Hi there! I've taken another look over the Coronation article, as you requested, and posted a few more comments on the talk page, mainly about referencing and ref formatting. The article looks much improved from when I last looked at it, so very nice work. With a few more refs and some more formatting work, this will probably be a breeze to put through GA (I can't say that for sure, but that's just my feeling on the article). Very nice job! Let me know if you have any questions about my comments. Dana boomer (talk) 18:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for your comments and feedback. I've responded to the specific comments you made on the talk page for the article, but just wanted to say "thanks again"! - Ecjmartin (talk) 00:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, would you have any objections to the article being renommed for GA? [ roux  ] [ x ] 23:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Not at all! Feel free; I got so burnt out after all the time I spent on it that I just haven't felt like revisiting it lately.  So please, by all means, renominate it if you feel it's ready.  Thanks! - Ecjmartin (talk) 11:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Cool beans! I'll let you know :) [ roux  ] [ x ] 20:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! And BTW, please allow me to say "mega-thanks" to you for all your hard work on the references and notes.  This article has been vastly improved by your efforts, and I just wanted to express my appreciation.  Thanks again! - Ecjmartin (talk) 23:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Yay! [ roux  ] [ x ] 06:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Awesome! Thanks again for all of your hard work--wouldn't have made it without you! - Ecjmartin (talk) 12:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Could you help me at Pentecostalism
An editor has put a sentence in the Pentecostalism article which says "Oneness Pentecostals embrace a theology and terminology that shares qualities in common with both Arian and Monisitc or Modalistic derivations." Initially it was unsourced, and later someone put a cite that lead to the UPCI doctrine of faith-which says nothing about Arian or Modalism. Is this statement accurate and if it is there a source we can back it up with? Thanks for clearing up the Godhead section at UPCI the first 2 paragraphs are better but the other ones are still a little much to digest. Thanks. Ltwin (talk) 20:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I apologize in advance for the length of my reply, but I thought you deserved a more detailed explanation than could be encapsulated in a simple "sound bite." Our theology is most definitely NOT Arian or Modalistic, though I understand why many might mistake it as the latter.  I do not understand the comparisons to Arianism, as we have never denied the divinity of Jesus Christ, only the eternality of His existence AS "the Son."  Arius, if I remember correctly, taught that the Son was a created being, separate from His Father.  We teach that the Son IS the Father united to human flesh, who was begotten not eternally (as Trinitarians teach), but at a specific moment in time, as Hebrews 1:5 indicates.  Despite what Trinitarians might try to assert, this is most definitely NOT Arianism, as Arius completely separated the Son from the Father, which we do not do.  For us, the Son is the Father in human flesh, which is something Arius did not believe.


 * Our difference with Trinitarians is that while they believe the Godhead consists of three eternally-distinct persons who are eternally one in essence, we believe that God is, and always has been, one person. Modalism, if I understand correctly, teaches that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are merely modes or titles by which the one God manifests Himself.  While this understanding is common among UPCI members and is identified as basically correct according to Dr. David Bernard (probably our foremost theologian on the subject), it can still lead to some confusion, especially if one brings a Patripannistic understanding of Modalism (with which we do not agree) to the table.


 * When the one true God took on human flesh, He begat a son upon an earthly virgin woman named Mary. This Son of God has the fullness of human nature (excluding sin), but also the "fullness of the Godhead," as Paul teaches in Colossians.  As such, He is both God and Man.  Part of the difficulty of understanding the Gospels, from a Oneness point of view, lies in the fact that sometimes Jesus acted on earth as God, sometimes as man, and sometimes as both.  In His humanity, acting as the "Last Adam" (as Paul called Him), Jesus is a separate person from His Father--thus, Jesus' words in John 8:17-18 make sense from a Oneness perspective.  However, in His divinity, Jesus IS the Father, as He affirmed in John 10:30; 14:9 and 8:58.


 * For Trinitarians, all of this indicates two eternal persons (with the Holy Ghost making a third); but for Oneness believers, this indicates one unique person--our Lord Jesus Christ, whom no one who ever has lived, or will live, could ever be like--acting in either a divine or human role at any given moment, or both. For us, this all centers on the strident monotheism of the Scriptures; God clearly indicates that He is ONE.  The Jews understood Him as such: even when the term "Spirit of God" or "Holy Ghost" was used in the Old Testament or during Jesus' own lifetime, the Jewish people ALWAYS understood their God to be utterly and completely ONE.  For us, it is inconceivable that God would permit His people to believe He was one for thousands of years, when He was really three.


 * You asked about a source. I would suggest David Bernard's The Oneness of God, which is probably the definitive UPCI work on the Godhead today.  It's available online; the address is on the UPCI wikipedia page.  I'll need to head over to the "Pentecostalism" article and correct that entry; it's definitely spurious.  Thanks for bringing it to my attention, and thanks for taking the time to read this lengthy diatribe of a reply!  Again, I apologize for its length, and I thank you for your work on the UPCI article.  God bless! - Ecjmartin (talk) 21:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I would like to get this article to good article status (WP:GA). The main problem I see is that there is still a substantial amount of the article unsourced or poorly sourced. Also the Women section is extremely out of proportion to the rest of the article. We either need to make the rest of the History sections longer, which with Wikipedia's article size guidelines may not be the best way to go, or we need to prune some of the excess minutae (spelling?) away. There are some important holes that need to be filled. I would appreciate your continued input with the article to get to this goal. Ltwin (talk) 05:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Only classical denominations are mentioned, but there are important groups outside of classical Pentecostalism
 * 2) No mention of Prosperity Gospel
 * 3) We need to figure out what to do with that list of Pentecostal leaders, lists in articles are undesirable. We need to find a way to incorporate Pentecostal leaders into the article text. Or just convert the list into paragraphs in their own right, but a paragraph just talking about individuals might look odd.
 * 4) And of course need better sourcing.
 * I wholeheartedly agree, and would be glad to assist. I will be having surgery next week, and so am not sure how much I'll be able to contribute before that event (or exactly when I'll be able to get back to it, afterwards), but I would like to help.  As you observed, the article seems heavily slanted toward "classic" Pentecostal denominations, most especially the AG denomination (at least in my opinion).  There was practically no mention of Oneness Pentecostalism before I began editing, and some of what was there was erroneous.   I would like to perhaps reorganize it where it would contain general information on common basic beliefs, history, etc., then subsections to focus on varous Wesleyan Holiness, Higher Life and Oneness groups in particular (without getting TOO detailed!), since these are the three basic subdivisions of Pentecostalism today.  I agree the the "women" section is extremely "top-heavy;" though I wholeheartedly support a sizable section on the contributions of women to our movement (as they are important!), I think a lot of what's there now is redundant and could be trimmed.  I also believe the "history" section could be shortened, as well.  And, the smaller groups certainly deserve attention.  As far as the leaders go, I think bringing them into the appropriate paragraphs in the history section OR in sections relating to their particular sect would solve that problem.  I think the article needs a lot of work, as you observed, and I'll be happy to get involved--and would appreciate your continued input on this and other articles, as well.  Thanks for the invite!  God bless! - Ecjmartin (talk) 12:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Oneness articles
There is a group of articles which are very poorly written and seem to cover alot of the same information. I don't know if you've had a chance to look at these. I've attempted to work on them but everytime I try to read through it once I start getting head aches. Some of these may need to be merged and proposals for mergers have already been made for 2 of them. Those two are Oneness Pentecostalism (doctrine) (which seems to have been written from a solely UPCI point of view) and Oneness vs Trinity (if this stays a separate article it needs a name change as it looks like a court case!). The other article is the Jesus' Name doctrine. For this article I split the History section into History and Interpretation (though it probably needs a better title) as before the change there was just one huge History section with only the first 3 paragraphs discussing the history. I know you're currently busy and all but I just wanted to throw that out there to you in case you haven't seen it. I can help out with organizational and verifiability but I'm not knowledgeble on these doctrinal issues to do much myself. Ltwin (talk) 17:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look at them, and see what I can do. I've been reluctant to wade into the Oneness and Jesus-name articles, because it appears that several people have been quite heavily engaged in editing them, and sometimes they can really "go at it" with each other (or so it seemed, when I looked at them last, which was some time ago)!  But I agree with you that they are rather poorly written.  Maybe I should take a shot at it and see what happens, as I am able.  God bless! - Ecjmartin (talk) 22:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

You're doing nice work on the doctrine article. Its looking better already. Ltwin (talk) 23:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Thanks also for your input!  There's much more to come, God-willing.... - Ecjmartin (talk) 23:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I discovered when reading a book I have, The Future of Pentecostalism in the United States, that a chapter on Oneness Pentecostalism was written by David Bernard. I'll add any good info I find. Ltwin (talk) 23:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Awesome! I haven't seen that work. Gotta' fly (Wednesday night church), but I'd be very interested in what you're able to find! Thanks for your help! - Ecjmartin (talk) 23:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Using this book, I reworked the God section of the Oneness Pentecostalism article. I'd appreciate it if you'd look at it and make any changes you think are necessary. Ltwin (talk) 00:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Excellent work! I thought you got it pretty close. I went through and "tweaked" the article as a whole somewhat, as it had been one of those on my list that I wanted to look at; take a gander at it and let me know what you think. Thanks for your contributions! - Ecjmartin (talk) 12:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Its starting to look really great. Tell me when you're done with all the edits you have planned and we will see if its ready to be nominated for good article status WP:GA. I still think the history section is a little week on verifiability. Let me know what you think. Good work. Ltwin (talk) 02:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the compliment! I've been working on the references and the article as a whole, and agree that the history section could use more help.  Not sure if it's ready for GA just yet, but I think we're well on the way!  I'm hoping to get it done in the next few days, at least for now, and return to working on Oneness Pentecostalism (doctrine). - Ecjmartin (talk) 02:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

You asked me to get back with you about the Oneness Pentecostalism article once I was finished with it. I've done a very great deal of work on the doctrine section (as opposed to the history section--though I've worked on it, too), and I think the doctrine part is pretty close to being done (though I'm still planning to review and possibly revise it some more after my recovery from surgery). It's NOT ready for GA nomination by any means, but it's well on its way, in my opinion. I'm having surgery tomorrow, and may not be able to even get to my computer for a few days, but if you'd like to take a look at what I've done so far and comment on it (or revise it, if needed), I'd appreciate it! - Ecjmartin (talk) 04:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll probably be busy with school this week but I'll look at it if I have time. I really haven't had much time to do any editing in a couple of days. Ltwin (talk) 04:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem! Just "whenever you can;" I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts--and also on the question of what ought to happen with the Oneness Pentecostalism (doctrine) article, as its content has been pretty much merged into Oneness Pentecostalism.  I posted a request for thoughts on deletion, etc. on the former article's talk page, but haven't heard anything from anyone so far.  Best wishes on your schooling this week! - Ecjmartin (talk) 04:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Bill Sketoe
Hello! there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath and respond there as soon as possible.

You're welcome!
No problem with the minor corrections on Bill Sketoe. An interesting tale! Careful With That Axe, Eugene (talk) 07:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Westport
Thank you so much for your extensive clean ups. I've written a lot on Missouri Civil War battles (including all the photos including the capital mural) on the Westport article and did the Missouri Civil War Template. I kept meaning to come back to totally rewrite it since it needed nearly a 100 percent rewrite. Westport is probably the most important large battle of the Civil War that nobody has ever heard of. Thanks again for bringing it up to speed!!! Americasroof (talk) 13:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You're quite welcome! I live in Independence, so this battle is of great interest to me.  I've been working on several Civil War battle articles from local engagements around Kansas City, and I was shocked at the state of the Battle of Westport article when I first saw it.  My goal was to make it more readable, expand it where needed, and "trim" it (especially in the preservation section, which was very "top-heavy") where appropriate.  I'm glad to hear that another Wikipedian thinks I've succeeded at that endeavor.  Thanks for your comments--and for your photos, which are terrific!! - Ecjmartin (talk) 13:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Bill Sketoe
I found the article on Bill Sketoe whilst patrolling the backlog of new articles, you appear to be the main contributor to the article, so I thought I would pop by and thank you for writing it. Patrolling new pages is a dreary, thankless task and the temptation to skip over bits of yet another poorly written article are suddenly cast aside when an article like this one pops up, it is almost like finding a nugget of gold when all you have ever found in your pan before is grit. I found it both an informative and entertaining read. Thanks again for lightening a dreary task. Trevor Marron (talk) 23:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I responded to this on your talk page, but on the chance that I didn't, please first let me apologize, and then thank you immensely for such a nice compliment! I grew up in southeastern Alabama, and Bill Sketoe was a part of our local lore that practically everyone knew about.  I was a bit surprised that no one had created this article before me, but then again, I got a chance to create it myself, and really enjoyed doing so.  It's nice to hear that another reader appreciated it so much.  Thanks again for the compliment!  Best wishes! - Ecjmartin (talk) 14:56, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry
I will no longer be editing the Coronation article, due to User:Miesianiacal slowly becoming involved. He causes me far too much stress. I wish you the best of luck in getting it to A or FA status. → ROUX   ₪  04:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm very sorry to hear that! Your contributions to this article (and Wikipedia in general) have been immesurable, and I know it could never have reached GA status without your help and imput.  Thanks for all your help, and I'm sorry to hear that you are leaving the article.  If you ever change your mind, please feel free to return anytime!  Thanks again for your help! - Ecjmartin (talk) 11:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Elizabeth II Coronation.jpg
Hello! Is there any way we can use the image of Elizabeth II's coronation in the article about coronation? The licensning allows us to use the image only in the article about King Edward's Chair, but the image would suit the coronation article perfectly! What do you think? Surtsicna (talk) 21:28, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In so far as I know, if the image is already in the Wikipedia Commons, it's cool for use in ANY Wikipedia article, not just the one it was originally listed for. So, in my opinion (and I'm not an Administrator or Wiki "expert" by any means!), it would be just fine to use it; I for one agree wholeheartedly with you on its usefulness for the article, and would like to see it included.  I'd say go ahead and put it in, and if an Administrator or other higher-up doesn't agree, they'll remove it. - Ecjmartin (talk) 23:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The image is not in the Commons and the terms of use mention only the article about King Edward's Chair. That's why I'm asking you for advice. I'll ask "my" administrator for help. Anyway, where would we put the image? Is it good enough to be in the lead section or does it belong to the UK section? Surtsicna (talk) 20:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * My apologies. Since it's not in the Commons and the terms of use are as you say, I'd definitely contact an administrator, as I am certainly no expert on issues of this kind.  I would like to see it in the lead section if possible; I would imagine that whenever the word "coronation" is mentioned, the vast majority of people (at least in North America) undoubtedly think of Elizabeth II, before anyone else, and thus I think it would make a fitting photo for the lead.  Let me know what you find out! - Ecjmartin (talk) 21:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I asked User:Parsecboy for permission. If it takes some begging, I expect you to help :) Surtsicna (talk) 21:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem; just let me know! - Ecjmartin (talk) 02:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, Charlemagne stays where he is - we can't use the image. Surtsicna (talk) 13:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry! I kinda' expected that, though, given the restrictions you mentioned....  Thanks for trying! - Ecjmartin (talk) 14:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Lead image
Hi! I do not dispute the significance of Charlemagne's coronation, but can we find an image which shows the moment of coronation more clearly or more faithfully? I propose we use either the image of Charles VII of France's coronation or the image of the coronation of Louis VIII of France and Blanche of Catile. What do you say? Do you have a better image? Surtsicna (talk) 22:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't have anything better to offer. Personally, I like the first of the two images you suggest, of Charles VII of France's coronation.  It's crisp, detailed, and really beautiful art (at least to me!).  The other image would be fine, too, but I like the first one better.  Thanks for asking!  BTW: Excellent work on the article!!  You're really expanding it nicely.  Keep it up, and thanks again! - Ecjmartin (talk) 00:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, the first image is truly beautiful, a bit romantic. You can only imagine how important that coronation was for the Hundred Years War. Then again, the other image shows coronation of a queen consort too and it is generally more used. Thanks for helping me pick one! Anyway, I'm going to add a section about Naples. There is little information about Neapolitan coronations in English - few passages of European regalia and History today is all I've got at the moment. Well, I'll think of something. Surtsicna (talk) 15:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Awesome!!! Look forward to seeing it!! - Ecjmartin (talk) 15:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's uploading normally when I open the article. I'm sorry I can't help you - I have no idea about such things :( Surtsicna (talk) 17:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Coronation of the Holy Roman Emperor
I think we have enough material to create an article about Coronation of the Holy Roman Emperor. All the information about the ceremony from Coronation article would be enough, but we also have a list of coronations. See User:Surtsicna/Coronation of the Holy Roman Emperor. I'll add a list of crowned empresses soon. What do you think? Surtsicna (talk) 18:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. I look forward to seeing it!  Also, the photo is working now; don't know what that was earlier.... - Ecjmartin (talk) 19:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What should I do with the section in the coronation article? Would you shorten it, please? Surtsicna (talk) 20:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd be glad to, but could I see your article (on the Holy Roman Coronation itself), first? Once I see it, I'll get a better idea of what to retain in this (shortened, for the Coronation article) version--as well as linking readers to the main article.  Let me know when you get your article done (or at least rough-drafted).  Thanks! - Ecjmartin (talk) 23:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The article is here. Thank you! Surtsicna (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!
Wow! Thank you! That is my first barnstar!

I was thinking about creating a seperate article for the enthronement of the Japanese emperor, but there are no available images of the ceremony and I generally know little about it. The section deffinetly deserves a seperate article, but it would look a bit raw without images and sections. Surtsicna (talk) 13:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You're welcome! I definitely agree that the Japanese coronation ceremony could use its own separate article.  I've looked on Wikimedia Commons, and found the following possible images for use in the article:


 * http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Emperor_Showa.jpg (taken during Hirohito's enthonement in 1928);
 * http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Emperor_Hirohito_coronation_1928.jpg (the same photo, actually; I'd recommend using the one above, as it's larger); and
 * http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Empress_Teimei_at_coronation_in_1912.jpg (taken at coronation of Taisho in 1912).


 * These might give us at least something to put in a new article on the subject; maybe once the article is created, other readers will provide more, if necessary. Let me know what you think! - Ecjmartin (talk) 13:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I've created the article: see Coronation of the Japanese Emperor, and tell me what you think! I've placed a link into the main Coronation article, and will be redacting the Japanese section accordingly within the next few minutes.  I accidentally created it as "Coronation" rather than "Enthronement"; this was accidental on my part, but I've made it clear in the article intro that it's more of an enthronement than a traditional coronation. - Ecjmartin (talk) 15:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, I'm watching your page, I just wasn't online. Great article! I redirected it to Enthronement of the Japanese Emperor, but I am not sure whether the word Emperor should be capitalized. Surtsicna (talk) 09:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

UBX/Army Achievement Medal
I moved this userbox to User:UBX/Army Achievement Medal as userboxes should not be located in the main space. I've requested the page in the main space to be deleted. Please only create userboxes in the user space from now on. Thanks. Jujutacular talkcontribs 12:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that! - Ecjmartin (talk) 12:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem, easy mistake. Happy editing! Jujutacular talkcontribs 15:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Temple Lot
I enjoy watching you clean up the KC area articles. I felt alone there for a long time. Thanks for the work on Temple Lot. Once again the panorama and cornerstone photos are mine and I've done a lot of stuff on it as well as a lot on the Mormon War. Just as a heads up, take a look at the talk page on the article. Jordan Smith who set fire to the church keeps coming back to edit it under various pseudonames and then threatening anybody who tries to change his work. To make his point he posted a picture of what he said he was me and my dog and mentioning an address. He also threatened police action if anybody changes his work. He is constantly getting banned but it's very unsettling. I've seen lots of arguments on WP but never anything like this. I'm a little gun shy on the article. There's a ton of interesting stuff I want to add about the eviction from Jackson County but I hate dealing with this guy. Thanks again. Americasroof (talk) 05:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the compliment! I understand about what you mentioned; I'll keep an eye out for him.  I had scanned the talk page before making my edits, and I could see what you were saying.  I made sure to leave his name out of the article, as that seemed to be his #1 beef from what I was reading.  I try to steer clear of trouble in general, and I understand about being "gun shy" with regard to potential edit wars (or worse, as you've mentioned here!); I encountered the same thing in the Jarvis Island article and ultimately gave up trying to clean it up, as it just wasn't that important to me to begin with.  The Temple Lot article, on the other hand, is important to me, and I appreciate your wonderful photos, hard work, and support for my meager efforts.  I had wondered if I would offend anyone by going in and cleaning it up the way I did, and I'm relieved to know that at least one person out there approves.  RE: Eviction of Latter Day Saints from Jackson County--have you thought about making a separate article on the subject?  There's so much that could be written on that topic, that it really deserves an article of its own, I think!  What do you think? - Ecjmartin (talk) 11:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Howdy, I came to your discussion page to also compliment you on tidying up the Temple Lot article as well as other articles of interest to yourself and others, and I then I see the snide remarks by Americasroof, who continues to feel perfectly comfortable naming (and slandering) a fellow Wikipedia editor, mainly because he believes the results of his own ineptitude and slander. Americasroof is one of quite a number of so-called "editors" or "authorities" who have not done even the first thing required by exposure to a controversial event or person: research, inquire, investigate, and then report facts, not ridiculous, childish hearsay and rumors. I'm pleased you have reviewed the talk page for Temple Lot, please examine it even more closely and follow some of the links in to the noticeboards and so forth...you will find that hypocrites like Americasroof, Snocrates(=GoodOlfactory) and Trodel and CoolHandLuke first kept publishing Jordan Smith's name in the body of both articles, and on their talk pages (such as this one), in total defiance of WP:BLP guidelines (which specifies that any mention of any living person's name in any article is to be treated very carefully, and then when they finally quit in December, 2007, they rush to ban any factual information (or especially any positive information) about the Temple Lot so far as it relates to one of its members: Jordan Smith. Meanwhile, they insist on linking to an astounding piece of slander/false information, ostensibly about the Temple Lot church and Jordan Smith, concocted first by a few anti-Joseph Smith anti-LDS derelicts, then non-Mormon anti-Mormon local press organizations, and then promulgated unchanged by one of the most stridently anti-Mormon (anti-Joseph Smith) writers and lecturers in the United States: James Walker, President of the Watchman Fellowship.  I'm pleased to see that you are a resident of Independence, Missouri, you are in a good position to examine false information about the Temple Lot sect, Mormonism in general, and Jordan Smith, and offer corrections in addition to, or separate from, the ones he has added under various usernames, always "sockpuppeting" to avoid the slander and harrassment by "anonymous cowards" or anti-Mormon "know-it-alls," some of whom, such as Trodel and CoolHandLuke, are ostensibly members of the Mormon (LDS) church.  An example of false information which these and others have scrambled to maintain in the body of both articles, is in the New York Times report in 1898, the New York Times recently apologized for garbling its report about Walter Cronkite, and its December 1898 report about Wm. D.C. Pattyson (not spelled Pattison) is likewise garbled and slanderous, the same as anti-Mormon or non-Mormon press accounts have traditionally been in regards to any Mormon figure.  Wm. D.C. Pattyson was never a member of the LDS church, he joined the RLDS church in Boston in 1887 and began to argue that the RLDS church and LDS church needed to fulfill the commission to LDS elders in the Doctrine & Covenants, that aggrieved church elders needed to go back to Independence Missouri and confront the liars and thieves who had stolen their property, lied about them, and chased them from the state. Mr. Pattyson possibly never claimed to be the one "mighty and strong," but he did repeatedly urge all RLDS (and then fellow members of the Temple Lot sect after he joined it earlier in 1898) to please do more for a literal Zion than sit around and argue and debunk one another.  As with any educated or honest activist who crosses paths with the Temple Lot sect's leadership, Mr. Pattyson was immediately lied about, Temple Lot officials falsely claimed he had demanded ownership of the Temple Lot and that he had claimed to be the One Mighty And Strong. And in 1898, local press as well as the New York Times, duly reported wild or garbled rumors as fact....sort of exactly like Americasroof does in regards to Jordan Smith (oh and by the way, it's spelled pseudonyms not pseudonames....and look how Trodel similarly misspells a word ("capitalizaiton" while falsely alleging misspellings in richly-informative passage about Pattyson (and then of course deleting/censoring it)....where do they get these geniuses???).  Oh well, lol, don't get me started. Oh, another thing, a favorite favorite favorite tactic of haters of Joseph Smith, Jr., and of other courageous or unusual religious political or religious activists is to falsely allege that he or she threatened or threatens violence when he or she is disagreed with.  What C. Leroy Wheaton, Jr., Americasroof and Trodel and Snocrates repeatedly insinuate or state to that effect, about a certain fellow, is false. Trodel especially, takes the cake, he denounced Jordan Smith for making "threats of violence" at the Temple Lot talk page, when there was never any such thing.  And Then Americasroof implies right here in his childish rant, that his name and photo were posted as some kind of "threat."  No, his name and photo were posted because he kept (and keeps) insisting on posting the name and other personal information (but mostly false information) about someone else, in defiance of WP:BLP and of basic decency. Anyway, welcome to the fray, I find your tone so far to be refreshingly professional and....decent. Oh and yes...anyone who uses Wikipedia to threaten or intentionally harass someone, is subject to what Americasroof calls "police action," I suppose he meant law enforcement...enforcement of laws meant to protect persons from abuse by other persons. Now watch, a veritable tsunami of fanatical hypocrites will rush to censor this explanation offered you. But no matter how many facts are censored here, and falsehoods substituted in their stead, the surprising and comforting truth will eventually reside here (at Wikipedia). 70.129.124.208 (talk) 11:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S....I wrote the above before reading closely the final part of Americasroof's comment to you. Actually, an irony is that we all owe a debt of gratitude to Americasroof for including crucial little-known facts about the reasons behind the 'eviction' of the Latter-Day Saints from Jackson County in 1833 (evidently a microcosm of what led to the American Civil War thirty years later.). As far as I know, Americasroof should feel perfectly comfortable adding more information to Temple Lot articles, it's just that no one should feel comfortable defaming or harassing a living person. Having remembered Americasroof's professionalism in regards to topics other than "that guy" I feel more optimistic, and wish you both the best. 70.129.124.208 (talk) 11:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * EC, I see that you and Jordan have now met. Americasroof (talk) 14:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment! My sole interest in this article lies in having lived in Independence for twenty years, and my wish to see the Temple Lot (and other Wikipedia articles I edit) be the best that I can make them (not that someone else couldn't make them even better, still!). It sounds like I might have achieved my goal here, and I thank you for your input. I think that the present wording of the portion of the article that you refer to is quite satisfactory "as is", and from what you have written above, it seems that you do, too. Thanks again for your thoughts and compliments, and I in turn wish you all the best, as well! - Ecjmartin (talk) 12:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Fettingite Expertise
You've done great work on the terribly-complicated Fettingite articles. I corrected parts of those, but overall you're done a better job on explaining the overview than I might have done. How come you don't have an email? I would like to share with you more documentation about Fettingite history and doctrine, which you could choose to incorporate into those articles, and others. Added Knox (talk) 12:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't give out my email address on Wikipedia, but if you would like to put those references here, I'd certainly be very interested in looking at them. Thanks for your edits on those articles--good work, there! - Ecjmartin (talk) 14:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I see you've done more good work today "tightening up" the lede at Church of Christ (Fettingite), my only correction was a minor typographical error. I will post here at your talk page some interesting stuff, but I was hoping you would activate your "email this user" function at your User Page, you can do that by clicking "My Preferences." Your email address remains unknown, even to fellow Wikipedia users who email you. This is useful to privately discussing controversial or personal information before publicly publishing it. Added Knox (talk) 21:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've activated it. Try it whenever you like. - Ecjmartin (talk) 01:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)