User talk:Richwales/Archives/2011-06

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:14, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The U.S. government's decision to revoke Juan Mari Brás renunciation of U.S. citizenship
This new distributed by the The Associated Press copyright on June 7, 1998 by the San Juan Start clearly use the work revoke.

The acceptance I think was on 1995, and the revoke on 1998.

BERRIOS: DECISION ON MARI BRAS SHOWS P.R. STILL A COLONY

In addition:

Renouncing Citizenship and Vieques

--Seablade (talk) 15:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 14:48, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the Church of Jesus Christ (LDS)
Hey Richwales,

I'm not sure if I have explained myself clearly, I don't want to bog down discussion at The Church page.

To give you a context it is really important people understand the church name changes in order.

1. The church in 1830 was named "The Church of Christ" (all off-breaks will share that common history like it or not (Latter-day Saints included)

2. The name of the Church was renamed to "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" (No hyphen capital 'D' Day). All off-breaks likewise share that common history and name, like it or not (LDS included).

3. In 1851 the Church was named to its present title, "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" hyphen/lower case 'd'. This is the point at which the Church had divided and therefore it could be seen as insensitive to write that Joseph Smith founded/organized "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints".

But it is entirely fair, neutral, well-documented, and appropriately courteous to state that Joseph Smith founded The Church of Christ (later named The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints). This is much more appropriate than the present state in which Joseph Smith founds a movement.

As the article states already,

"The church teaches that it is a continuation of the Church of Christ established in 1830 by Joseph Smith, Jr. This original church underwent several name changes during the 1830s, being called the Church of Jesus Christ, the Church of God, and then in 1834, the name was officially changed to the Church of the Latter Day Saints. In April 1838, the name was officially changed to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. After Smith died, Brigham Young and the largest body of Smith's followers incorporated the LDS Church in 1851 by legislation of the State of Deseret under the name The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints which included a hyphenated "Latter-day" and a lower-case "d"."

Please reconsider what I have perceived as attacks on both me and my position.-- Canad iandy  talk  06:05, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I do, in fact, understand the above history (as I mentioned before, I am LDS).


 * I will continue to say that the expression "Latter Day Saint movement" is considered acceptable, and neutral, by a long-standing consensus of editors who have been working on this related set of pages. The naming issues have been the subject of discussion for a long time, the current set of compromises are summarized in the "manual of style" page (MOS:LDS) which I cited earlier, and we are all expected to honour and apply these compromise decisions as we work on articles under this broad topic.  Any significant change in the naming policies (and I believe what you are proposing will be seen as a change in emphasis falling into this category) needs to be done with the support of the people who have worked on the MOS.  If it turns out that the editors working on "WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement" and the associated manual of style page can be convinced to agree with your argument, it will give your position far more credibility and protect it significantly against subsequent change — but, contrariwise, if you don't work within the system and instead try to push a change of this sort against an evident consensus going another way, the end result is not likely to be nearly as good.


 * And when I cautioned you not to jump in and modify the current MOS text without first involving yourself in discussion and achieving a revised consensus, I was not trying to attack or belittle you in any way; I was merely offering a friendly piece of caution which I felt was appropriate given what appears to be your relatively new involvement here. Indeed, I believed it would have been a disservice to you for me to have pointed you at the MOS:LDS page without warning you to be careful in the way you might approach the disagreements I assumed you would probably have with that material.  If, in fact, you already understand this, then I'll gladly retract my warning (though not the constructive motivation with which I offered it).   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 06:57, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the insight, Richwales. I was not aware of the function of MOS. I assumed it was merely a WP policy page. I'll go there and see what happens. Thanks for the heads up.-- Canad iandy  talk  01:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

GOCE elections
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 08:06, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Task force WP:RFA2011 update
Hi. As of 20 June: More stats have been added on candidates and !voter participation. Details have been added about qualifications required on other Wikis for candidates and RfA !voters. Some items such as clerking, !voters, and candidates are nearing proposal stage. A quick page`link template has been added to each page of the project. Please visit those links to get up to speed with recent developments, and chime in with your comments. Thanks for your participation.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 08:30, 20 June 2011 (UTC).

Haiducii
See the reply on my talk page. — Adi  Japan  03:08, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Again. — Adi  Japan  12:29, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Your input is requested
Greetings!

As a member of the RfA improvement task force, your input is requested at the possible proposals page, which consists of ideas that have not yet been discussed or developed.

Please look though the ideas and leave a comment on the talk page on the proposal(s) you would most like to see go forward. Your feedback will help decide which proposals to put to the community. And, as always, feel free to add new suggestions. Thanks!

Swarm, coordinator, RfA reform 2011

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 07:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC).