User talk:MikeInSLC

Salt Lake Temple
Please stop adding your opinions and commentary to the Salt Lake Temple article, as you did in these places:    

The opinions and commentary you continue to add to the Salt Lake Temple article are inappropriate. All text added to articles must be Neutral in point of view, verifiable, not original research, and not a place for you to stand on a soapbox. Jaksmata 02:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, Jaksmata... It's obvious you have no idea of what you're talking about. There is nothing in the addition to the article that is not neutral in point of view, it is completely verifiable, it is no research of my own - as I hardly claim the authorship of the bible, and I avoid soap boxes... why? Because I don't post anything that I am not 100% certain of. I've been through the temple more times that you can count... I know what I am talking about. Besides, Wikipedia isn't supposed to be exclusive to your point of view. That's what makes it worthwhile. Also...If you'd like to speak to me, you can email me here: MikeInSCL@gmail.com

The respectful additions to the Salt Lake Temple article
Greetings,

As having gone through the LDS temple more times that I can count, and as I have taught Gospel Doctrines for six years, Seminary for three years, was in the Branch Presidency while serving in the military on Guam, and been a happy card-carrying member of the LDS church, I think that I am qualified to speak on the aspects of the rituals carried out inside the temple. Nothing which has been written is in any way incorrect. Neither is it my opinion, nor is it my research. Simply spending a little time reading the Bible and reading Jewish history will give you all of the information that I included in the addition to the article. It is factual, verifiable, and possibly uncomfortable for some, but truth is truth. Please stop removing the addition to the article... it is hypocritical of you to do so.

If you'd like to discuss this further, or if you have questions related to temple worship as instituted in the Bible, carried out by the Children of Israel, then please, by all means, contact me.

Otherwise, leave truth enough alone.

Thanks!

M


 * Hi, M,
 * I have no reason to doubt your knowledge, and I believe your assertation that the Bible does not describe modern LDS temple worship. Many of the points that you’ve made are already in the articles on Temples and Temple (Latter Day Saints).  There are a few things, however, that you should keep in mind when adding this information to Wikipedia:


 * There are rules that describe how things should be worded (see Neutral point of view, Avoid weasel words and Words to avoid). When you write things like “are in no way similar to,” it tends to give the reader the impression that there’s something wrong.  In cases like this, you should avoid editorializing, just present the facts, and let the reader decide.  A better phrase would be “are different from.”  That gets your point across without giving “the Mormon police” (yes, there are many of us who could be accused of such) a reason to revert your changes.
 * Another problem is verifiability (see Verifiability). This doesn’t just mean you have to be truthful, but you also have to provide evidence other than your own experience for the facts that you add to Wikipedia (see No original research).  The stuff you added is unsupported by references.  You should look at the “External links” section at the end of articles to see how this is done.  You can also use footnotes within your text to link to external sources of information (see Footnotes).
 * Lastly, the place where you added your text makes it look suspiciously like someone trying to push a point of view. You added it to the Salt Lake Temple article, at the end of a section called “Temple construction and dedication.”  Your paragraph doesn’t have anything to do with the section, and although it’s related to the Salt Lake Temple, it should really be in an article about temples in general, not one specific temple.  The article called Temple (Latter Day Saints) would be a better place to put it.
 * One more thing I just remembered: there is a rule that nobody is allowed to revert the same thing three times (see Three-revert rule). Technically, I think you’ve broken that rule, which could get you blocked from editing, but I don’t think that will happen yet - since you are new, and seem willing to participate civilly.


 * I’m not going to revert your changes again, but there’s a good chance someone else will, for these reasons I’ve given. Before that happens, you might consider changing it yourself – it will add to your credibility.  I think if you do these things, you could add some valuable insight, and I look forward to seeing your future contributions.
 * Happy editing! Jaksmata 19:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Although I appreciate that you posted the information in a more respectful manner, you still are writing a persuasive piece of original research. Therefore I have removed all those changes. -- Trödel 00:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

An Automated Message from HagermanBot
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 19:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)