User talk:Rich Uncle Skeleton/Archive1

Book of Mormon
I am curious why you feel so strongly that Chemish and some of the other record keepers of the book of Omni are also considered prophets; do you have any reference for this? I would appreciate hearing it because I have never heard a definition of the calling of prophet that would include these individuals. --Storm Rider (talk) 07:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't necessarily feel that they are prophets, or that they are not. That's why I changed it from "prophets" to "writers"—there is no clear/NPOV way of determining who writing in the book is and is not a prophet, so I thought it was better just to refer to the "writers" of the book. Rich Uncle Skeleton 07:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You know I have never verified that each individual in the Book of Mormon recognized as a prophet also spoke of Christ, but I have heard it said by others. It was the reason I reverted it the first time, but your solution is also good and removes any problems. --Storm Rider (talk) 07:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah. I suppose the argument could be made that if a prophet didn't speak of Christ, he is not really a "prophet", since in LDS belief that's what a prophet does. It gets a bit circular, and it's probably best avoided I figured. Rich Uncle Skeleton 08:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Kiev/Kyiv
Please move your vote to Talk:Kiev/naming. The WP:RM section is simply a notification of the requested move, and there is no need for having votes in two locations. However, I will also ask you to review Naming conventions. My interpretation of "also presented in" means "also show the alternate", not "use historic as primary". 199.125.109.35 19:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 21:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Bickerton / LDS...?
Thanks for the note earlier. Nice work at Talk:The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ. - Reaverdrop ( talk /nl) 23:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Whoops—we cross-posted at the same time. See my comments on your talk page. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 23:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Might try inviting comment from other regular contributors at WP:LDS like User:Visorstuff, User:Storm Rider, and User:Trödel, they are knowledgeable and fair-minded. There's also a good RLDS/Community of Christ Wikipedian, User:Nerd42, who is also in WP:LDS, who would offer a valuable perspective. - Reaverdrop ( talk /nl) 23:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, will do. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 23:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately it looks like User:Nerd42 has been really inactive lately. Hope he checks in at some point. - Reaverdrop ( talk /nl) 23:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I invited Visor and Storm Rider; Trodel also looks like he may be away. Even if a few people can add some input I think we can make progress. Thanks for your help! :) Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 23:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

(Later reply at Visorstuff talk page) - Reaverdrop ( talk /nl) 03:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * (Later reply) - I'd say let the discussion stay open for a week or so, let any other interested parties put in their words, etc. Maybe there's an official process to nominate an article move, like with nominating an article for deletion - not sure. On the other hand, it doesn't seem like there's any real issue, it's pretty clear it should be moved. Just the mere fact of likelihood of confusion says if any page should be a disambiguation page, it should be the one under the current title of that article. Ask Visorstuff, he knows best. - Reaverdrop ( talk /nl) 06:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Bickerton / LDS cont'd
Hey, just a heads-up that certain users have been persistent in pulling the sources tag back down from the article on The Church of Jesus Christ‎ (Definitely Not Bickertonite), although I hesitate to ask you to pay it any more attention seeing how busy you have already made yourself around here in the past week. Aren't classes back in session or anything? :) - Reaverdrop ( talk /nl) 15:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks—I saw that it was being pulled off a few times. I'm keeping and eye on it but hope to back off a little bit from making comments, etc. I'm starting to question the good faith of some of the editors there, which I know is wrong, but when the opposition is so persistently and apparently POV, you have to start to wonder. Hopefully soon we can get a move proposal for the Article Name and have a real discussion about it and we can see the true shallowness and unconvincing nature of their arguments. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 21:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Rulon Jeffs
Just wanted to say EXCELLENT clean-up on Rulon Jeffs. I'm sorta new to the community and was afraid to change that. Good job and keep up the good work! --Sthatting 15:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Linguistics and the Book of Mormon vs. Criticism of Mormonism
Would you like to weigh on on this discussion as to whether the Linguistics and the Book of Mormon article should be deleted? --TrustTruth 23:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Anti-mormon
Never mind the ref. I just thought that without showing where the picture came from, it could just as likely have been the work of a Mormon comedian. But I followed the link from the picture and saw that it came from an ex-mormon site that had received several e-mails accusing them of being Anti-mormon. So, I won't re-add the citation request. Have a great day. Ratatosk Jones 08:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks-- Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 08:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Are these TCOJC branch-off pages really needed?
Hi Rich Uncle Skeleton, I wanted to let you know I posted this comment to two TCOJC branch-off articles that were started last week, one of which you fiddled with a bit recently - I wanted to get your thoughts on it - thanks.

"This page has little information, and what it does have is essentially all already in the main article for The Church of Jesus Christ. Unless there is going to be way more information added to both pages, that would make the main article too long without this separate branch-off article, do we really need this page? I am posting this comment the pages for both Quorum of Twelve Apostles (The Church of Jesus Christ) and History of The Church of Jesus Christ; it applies equally to both." - Reaverdrop ( talk / nl ) 22:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks—I'll comment there. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 03:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your replies. Now nothing can stop our Secret Combination of meatpuppetry from flooding Wikipedia with biased POV! Mwa ha ha ha! Hope we don't get found out. - Reaverdrop ( talk / nl ) 03:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Lol. I guess you can just call us "anti-Bickertonites" who love publishing "anti-Bickerton" material. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 05:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

CFD for Category:Emotion
Hi, I've just made an alternative proposal regarding the renaming of Category:Emotion, and I thought you might like to comment before the discussion closes. Thanks. Cgingold 15:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Saint Patrick's Battalion
Hi! As a prior editor of the above article, could you pls. keep an eye to make sure that the POV I removed does not find its way back in. I am so busy with work that I just don't have the time to monitor. Thanks!Barbara Wainscott 14:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll keep it on my watchlist. Thanks. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 22:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Revert War
Please discontinue your revert war with me on The Church of Jesus Christ. The last revert you made was included in an article that you argued for using. Picking out edits I make and changing little words and phrases are not useful edits. I would ask you to be civil and please assume good faith. I wish we could work together but you would rather waste my time making stupid edits to try and make me angry. Please just stop wasting mine and your time. Thanks JRN 01:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm completely unaware of what you are talking about. You'll have to be more specific. My last change at The Church of Jesus Christ was a minor change in punctuation (put a period where a comma was at the end of a sentence). I haven't been reverting anything, let alone "warring". Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 01:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok I'll just assume good faith. JRN 01:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * ?? Instead why don't you tell me specifically what you are talking about? Then I might be able to inform you of why I made the edit you say I did. If you don't care any more, that's fine too. FYI, my last revert on that page was well over 24 hours ago, and it didn't involve an edit by you, and the matter was later resolved through the talk page. ?? Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 01:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Patriarch (Latter Day Saints) Merge Proposal
(From User_talk:Reaverdrop) - I mean to go on sabbatical. I'll look at the article. Happy hunting, - Reaverdrop ( talk / nl ) 03:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Accusations against you at User_talk:COGDEN
Hi again Rich Uncle Skeleton,

FYI, I weighed in with my two cents regarding the aspersions against you at User_talk:COGDEN. - Reaverdrop ( talk / nl ) 04:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your opinion—that makes me feel somewhat better. I was a bit perplexed by his comments to COGDEN, as well as by his "reverting war" accusation above that went unexplained when I asked for details so we could address the problem. He attacks—I try to be conciliatory—he backs off completely. What the hey is up with that? He certainly seems to think I have it in for him personally; I guess he's misinterpreting my edits. In my edits there and elsewhere, I often see the wisdom of the WP:COI recommendation—more than anything else, it prevents editors from needlessly taking offence in situations like this. I avoid editing pages of organizations or people I am involved with like the plague. It's just too hard not to become involved emotionally.


 * I thought the funniest part was how he didn't know that I actually own and have read the book that was in question when he assumed I had no knowledge of the subject or the citation. That and the comments to SESmith that you reproduced. I nearly fell off my chair from laughing when I read that point #1. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 04:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I had a hard stopping myself from inserting something like "Can you say 'IRONY'?" at the end of that one.


 * I guess I haven't avoided all organizations or people I am involved with, but I have avoided doing any editing at all involved with my actual area of professional knowledge (law), as long as no one is volunteering to pay my normal billing rate for my Wikipedia time. It would be like working for free. (But putting in free labor on other topics is a fun hobby...)


 * Here is my favorite recent example of a violation (of all kinds of things, but at the very least) of WP:COI: woohoo! (Compare the edit and the username, and for a bonus punchline, click on the username.) - Reaverdrop ( talk / nl ) 05:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh man, that is classic. How did you find that? Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 09:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I just had Planetary Society on my watchlist, and that fell into my lap. One can only hope for more from Lord Marcello. - Reaverdrop ( talk / nl ) 10:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * As for WP:COI, I have no problem with people editing things they are involved in, so long as they can control themselves. So many end up not being able to, as our friend has demonstrated. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 09:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Or, say our new friend at FLDS. You seem to have your hands full across the LDS movement. - Reaverdrop ( talk / nl ) 10:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Bah—I gave up on that one. I could see myself getting angry about it (partially because of the day's earlier events on WP--see above), and I just had to remind myself that it wasn't worth it so I walked away. I think they ultimately had good intentions and believed they were doing the right thing, and I did understand the point they were trying to make, but the methodology that was being employed was really crappy. They thought they should just write an entirely new historical section and insert it at the top of the article when a very good summary already existed further on? I thought I was being reasonable in the points I was making, but s/he seemed prepared to revert until the cows came home, so I gave up. I like editing in the area of religion, but you really need to pick your battles, I guess. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 10:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Biased
It would appear you are apparantly biased to the LDS religion. The article about the Tabernacle Organ you keep nominating for speedy deletion is obviously no longer a copyright infringement, and I'm going to have to ask the administrators for mediation should you continue in this manner. Please leave the article alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by --Carterdriggs 01:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)72.208.62.36 (talk) 04:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The first few sections are verbatim quotes from the webpage I specified. Merely adding to the article doesn't nullify the violation in the first few paragraphs. I stand by my assertions. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 04:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks—honestly I don't think I'm biased against LDS or LDS topics. My only concern there was with copyright, and perhaps we just misunderstood what each other were trying to accomplish. I'm happy to see the article develop and think it's an appropriate page to have if copyright can be respected. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 05:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Might I ask why you take such an interest to the LDS articles? --Carterdriggs 07:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I suppose I could ask you the same thing about LDS articles or something else you're really interested in. Why is anyone interested in anything? "Interest"—hard to explain. :) Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 07:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well I'm interested because I'm a member. You've contributed to articles, that are obviously available to anyone to edit, but you would think only members with 1st hand knowledge would edit. That's why I'm asking. It also seems you've had run ins with other members of my church about edits you've made. Care to comment on those?{{unsigned|Carterdriggs]]
 * I don't recall having any "run-ins" with LDS Church members. What are you referring to specifically? Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 08:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Accusations against you at User_talk:COGDEN#User_Probelms and your own revert wars section on this talk page. --Carterdriggs 08:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That particular editor is not a member of the LDS Church, and if you care to read all of the content at COGDEN's page, his charges were completely unfounded. A bit of a crank. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 08:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Personal attacks are not needed or welcomed, although I must admit crank is a new one. In the future keep your opinions to yourself.  Have a nice day.  JRN 18:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Arnold Potter
I just read Arnold Potter with interest. One question: where did you get the unpublished manuscript that you cited? Unless there's something special about this manuscript, it seems to violate Reliable sources. And please don't think I'm trying to be evil; if you look at my first talk page archive, you'll see that I posted my own opinions when I was new :-) Nyttend 14:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No, that's a legitimate point. It was given to me by a friend, so yes, it probably does violate it. I know it has also appeared on the internet too on the person's family site, but I don't have the exact site. (If it's still there it could probably be found with a bit of searching.) The WP article can probably still be sustained using the other sources. I think the main point I took from the unpublished source was the story of his death. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 22:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey again
What do you think of the quote I have in Satanic ritual abuse, that keeps getting deleted. Its really the only part of that sections that discusses the satanic aspects of the case. The section had no references to the satanic accusations, so I added the quote. Its being disparaged because of its source, a summary written at the death of Virginia McMartin in the New York Times. Your opinion will be a useful guide. But I think its being deleted because it disparages the accusations, and the other person is trying to emphasize that the accusations were true and the case was dismissed on technicalities or conspiracy. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll check it out and comment there. Thanks. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 06:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion
I stand by the speedy deletion request. It needs to be discussed, and it's not vandalism when I truly thought it met the criteria. It's not vandalism just because the person who created it doesn't like it. --Carterdriggs 10:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy deletion is not the process whereby users discuss whether or not to delete an article. If that's your purpose, you're looking at an AFD. Bone up on your policies before you keep throwing tags around. I didn't say it was vandalism, I said you'd be close to the line if you kept adding such tags now that you've been told that's not the proper procedure. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 10:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

You Reference WP just as I do, but delete my references. Why is that? --Carterdriggs 10:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't use WP articles to provide citations for statements that need external citations—and if I have, I should be slapped for it because it's not appropriate. I'm not sure what examples you are referring to specifically, but in reviewing my recent articles I don't see anywhere where I've done this. It certainly wouldn't be something I'd think of doing when looking for a citation for a fact. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 10:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * As an administrator I have declined the Speedy Deletion Request. Please see the talk page. Best Regards. Pedro : Chat  10:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Pedro. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 10:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Satanic ritual abuse and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
I will review it as soon as possible. There appears to be an edit war brewing here, and hopefully all sides will refrain from this, keeping the conversation on the talk page of the article dedicated towards improving it. I'll let you know my comments (I will place them on the articles talk page). Should you need any further assistance, admin related or otherwise I'm always happy to help. Pedro : Chat  11:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks again. I would appreciate it if you could continue to monitor. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 11:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I have made comments there, which I hope are of help. Best. Pedro : Chat  12:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * They are, very much so. You kind of got thrown into that one, but I appreciate your efforts and your help. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 12:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Proper page names/references
I just wanted to compliment you on the lots of work you have been doing on many of the Latter Day Saint movement pages. Just a reminder, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Latter Day Saints) clearly defines when referencing The Church of Jesus Christ you are to use its full name. I understand you do not agree with this, and that is okay, but still try and follow the guidelines when creating categories and page names. Thanks for your help. Jcg5029 13:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it's also not inappropriate to use -(Bickertonite) at the end of the name when a disambiguation is needed. "The Church of Jesus Christ" is simply too ambiguous for probably 99.99% of readers. Nothing wrong with helping the reader. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 13:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you have statistics to support your opinion. This term is offensive please remove to avoid vandalism and to follow the Wiki guidlines.  Thank you.  Jcg5029 13:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I don't have specific statistics, I was speaking colloquially, as I tend to do on my talk page. It's a fairly safe statement to make, though, that most people would not know what it refers to when we are talking about an organization with 15 000 members in the entire world. The term -(BIckerton) is in wide use in academic circles to desribe the groups of Latter Day Saints that accept the leadership of William Bickerton and its use probably raises the level of recognizability slightly, though most people are still probably clueless even with the disambiguator. I personally tend to conform with the accepted terminology of the academic area rather than worry about what every individual member of every individual Latter Day Saint denomination finds pleasant or upsetting. Otherwise it's just semantics that get debated all day, and that's boring (IMO). I'm sorry if you are offended by the term, but that's the one I and most other scholars in the area use and will continue to use. So long as the official name is used in addition to the disambiguator, I don't see a problem. The real name is used, and an explanatory disambiguator is added—good compromise. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 13:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The manual of style clearly states to only use the organizations official name. It is not about your or my opinion, it is about following the guidelines and avoiding offending others.  Please follow the guidelines and move some of your recent creations (which I think are great).  Jcg5029 13:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The manual of style does not restrict anyone from adding disambiguating terms to the text of an article to help readers figure out what is being talked about. If it did, it would be absurd and unenforceable. (You may be referring to the articles' names, but I am talking about referencing churches in articles.) Anyway, ultimately, the MOS are guidelines, not cast-iron rules, so I'm not too concerned when I add details that I think will help and not hurt an article. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 13:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It would be considered civil to propose a concensus change before going out on your own as a new editor and making changes without concensus, especially in areas that have been hotly debated as of late. It seems that you don't care to follow procedure and would rather "shoot first and take names later".  For future reference please propose changes and find concensus.  It just makes more sense.  JRN 17:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm just trying to be helpful. Per the former request, I am not adjusting the names of articles, which is what the MOS addresses. The MOS does not restrict helpful details from being added to the content of pages and no "concensus" [sic] is needed to do so. FYI, I am not a "new" editor. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 22:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, you kinda are. That's neither here nor there. You could have been editing only one day and still do a fine job so user JRN, it doesn't matter how long someone's been editing. Now, to the issue. I'm in agreeance that guidlines are not being followed. You have a habit, and a bad one at that Rich, to quote policy to those around you, and be the last one to follow it. It really has to stop before someone who can do something will certainly take notice, and stop it for you. Just follow policy. Simple. Carterdriggs 23:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

What I meant was I have been editing as an anon since 2004. The registered name is kinda new, but I as a user am not. I was just letting him know for interest' sake: "FYI".

As for your other comments, I'm not sure what you are referring to here, which is not unusual when it comes from you. You're gonna have to provide me with specifics. (You're good at generalities—usually low on specifics.) Everything specific that you have told me or cited to others so far has resulted from (I presume) your own misunderstanding of WP policies. This seems like a case of "pot—kettle—black" coming from someone who created a page that was 100% copyright violation and complained when users (more than just me) added DB tags. In the past day or so, you have accused me of doing the following things, which have no basis in fact and you cannot demonstrate that I have done:


 * 1) using WP articles as citations for statements needing citations;
 * 2) getting an administrator "friend" of mine to delete your inapprorpiate speedy deletion tag;
 * 3) deleting appropriately-placed wikilinks within articles;
 * 4) deleting appropriately-placed {cn} tags within articles;
 * 5) wrongfully nominating an article for speedy deletion;
 * 6) starting a CFD discussion to advance the prominence of articles that I have written;
 * 7) being anti-LDS Church (i.e. consistently POV) in my edits.

Have I missed anything? (Oh yes, you suggested to another editor that I couldn't possibly be a member of the LDS Church because of the contents of my user page.)

As a WP editor, I would not consciously do any of these points above, and perhaps not coincidentally, they are some of the principles that I have tried to remind you about regarding your edits.

Please, stay off my talk page and stop throwing out accusations that have no basis in fact if you can't assume good faith. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 23:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)