User talk:Routerone/Archive

Re:hi
Thank you for your response to my advice, and welcome to our encyclopedia. The Earwig (User 23:07, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Newwearbridge.jpg
Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:Newwearbridge.jpg has been listed for speedy deletion because you selected a copyright license type implying some type of restricted use, such as for non-commercial use only, or for educational use only or for use on Wikipedia by permission. While it might seem reasonable to assume that such files can be freely used on Wikipedia, this is in fact not the case. Please do not upload any more files with these restrictions on them, because images on Wikipedia need to be compatible with the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike or another free license, which allow anyone to use it for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial. See our non-free content guidelines for more more information.

If you created this media file and want to use it on Wikipedia, you may re-upload it (or amend the image description if it has not yet been deleted) and use the license cc-by-sa-3.0 to license it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license, or use PD-self to release it into the public domain. Note, if you did create this file, you may want to upload it to Wikimedia Commons, which will allow the image to be accessed by all Wikimedia Foundation projects (which include the various localized versions of Wikipedia)

If you did not create this media file, please understand that the vast majority of images found on the internet are not appropriate for Wikipedia. Most content on the internet is copyrighted and the creator of the image has exclusive rights to use it. Wikipedia respects the copyrights of others - do not upload images that violate others' copyrights. In certain limited cases, we may be able to use an image under a claim of fair use - if you are certain that fair use would apply here, you may choose one of the fair use tags from this list. If no fair use rationale applies, you may want to contact the copyright holder and request that they make the media available under a free license.

If you have any questions please ask at Media copyright questions. Thank you. dave pape (talk) 20:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I used the noncommercial template as that explains in detail the problems with NC images on wikipedia. If you wish to use the image in the article, you'd either have to get a confirmed free license from the copyright owners (see WP:PERMISSION), or use it as non-free content (see WP:NFCC).  For a model for the non-free approach, take a look at other renderings of buildings that have not yet been constructed, such as (from a quick search) File:Cadillac Centre rendering.jpg.  --dave pape (talk) 20:39, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

FAIR Wiki as a reliable source?
Discussion started at. Giving you a menu was not meant to be patronising but meant to rectify what I saw as an omission. Dougweller (talk) 15:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

First Vision
"In the case of certain LDS articles owned by the editor who uses the pseudonym John "Foxe," he has taken upon himself the task of bringing certain LDS Wikipedia article in line with his definition of "truth." His philosophy is that once an article has been "correctly" written, that it simply needs to be maintained against those who would attempt to heavily modify it in any manner. Following this approach, he has worked his way through a number of articles and worked hard to keep them stable...as long as that stability reflects his desired spin. This allows FAIR to analyze these articles with a high degree of assurance that they will remain close to the form that they are in at the time they are reviewed."

- FAIR Wiki

I have removed this statement you seem so keen on protecting from the First Vision article: "To most academic students of Mormonism, the first vision was either a lie, a false memory, a delusion, a dream, a hallucination, or some combination of these." The reason I am removing it is because the statement is:


 * Unsourced opinion- a conclusion has been drew from nothing and despite it being a disputed topic, it is being presented as common fact when it shouldn't be.
 * Bias- It is a conclusion drawn without including the opinion of apologetic evidence that supports the event, the statement is basically shunning the other point of view.

Now knowing the hell bent Anti-LDS editor that you clearly are; it is worth noting that a professional organisation watching the wikipedia article has properly identified with indepth study, that a great deal of your edits in relation the First Vision article and other LDS articles are in fact in violation of several wikipedia policies on neutrality and source interpretation. I think through seeing this, your arrogant and ill favoured behaviour on this website is not acceptable. You cannot go on deliberately shunning apologetical statement, and badly interpreting sources with your own tedious opinion. The fact that you are also aggressively hell bent on preventing anyone from proving your work wrong and rightfully correcting it, also bothers me. Routerone (talk) 17:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't write sentence in question: "To most academic students of Mormonism, the first vision was either a lie, a false memory, a delusion, a dream, a hallucination, or some combination of these." The sentence is part of the lead so really needs no citation because the statement is treated later in the article. Furthermore, the sentence speaks only to unbelievers and has nothing to do with apologetics. Basically, all the sentence says is, "Here is how non-believers explain the First Vision."  But if you'd like to dispute the matter, I'd take it up with the author, Cogden.--John Foxe (talk) 19:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

John Foxe is not the devil
Maybe it's not very offensive to him, but it bothers me when you accuse Foxe of being "hell bent" on this or that. Please do try to adhere to Wikipedia guidelines and policies such as WP:Assume good faith and WP:No personal attacks.

I am not sure of the context, but the phrase hell-bent does not seem to generally be an inflammatory or disrespectful term (i.e. from the lyrics of the old western song "Rawhide" "We're hell-bent for leather/ through wind and stormy weather/ wishin' our gals were by our side). I believe the term means merely strongly driven and maintains litle or no disrespect for its subject. Has Foxe himself expressed concern here? Canadiandy1 (talk) 08:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

Please don't misinterpret me, I am a big supporter of being bold and ignoring all rules, and I hope to see some valuable, bold edits from you in the future. Welcome to Wikipedia! ...but what do you think? ~B F izz (talk) 00:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Pointing out Conflict of Interest is not a personal attack
Routerone, it seems that you and I are taking flak from certain users for so-called personal attacks in our efforts to neutralize the Joseph Smith Jr. article. Being new to Wikipedia, I very carefully read the Wikipedia guidelines about personal attacks. Telling was that I found a big list of no-no's, with one sentence very relevant to our complaints with certain individuals:

"Note that although pointing out an editor's relevant conflict of interest and its relevance to the discussion at hand is not considered a personal attack,"

So, I don't suppose many editors on the J.S. article will agree with me - but if an individual is closely affiliated with an organization that is in competition with the LDS Church, or even Brigham Young University - there may be a conflict of interest. For example, the User John Foxe began life on Wikipedia, apparently working on only the Bob Jones University pages. Reviewing John Foxe's contribution history shows evidence of a strong interest in LDS topics. Based on John Foxe's editing history as I described, I am very comfortable making the allegation of conflict of interest.

In Fairness, A fair-headed arbiter may say that I have a conflict of interest as well. I freely disclose that I am an Elder in the LDS church, would count myself as a follower of Joseph Smith, and am a descendant of the Smith family. So, for that reason I will do my best to follow every Wikipedia guideline to check my personal bias. However, as many times as other editors exercise an extreme anti-LDS conflict of interest, I will call it out in public. That is not a personal attack. Proudneutralmormon (talk) 11:54, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi PNM,

I don't think we're supposed to be discussing real life of contributors. Besides, if Foxe really was associated with BJU, it should be noted that that University is (as of 2000) as biased against Catholics as Mormons (calling them both cults) and I checked and didn't find him in the Catholic discussion pages. I think he is likely just interested in specific religious organizations making him simply an eclectic researcher. Remember good faith.

Canadiandy1 (talk) 08:33, 9 February 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

deletable message
Thanks for posting to my talk page. I took a break from wikipedia but came back now. On my user page I outlined what I think the J.S.jr. page should be. interesting, it only took me about 4 minutes to type it out. Today I will get back to work on that page. No hope of accomplishing anything lasting considering the opposition. But I can try. Proudneutralmormon (talk) 17:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Edit to View of the Hebrews
Hi Routerone,

I noticed the following addition that you made to View of the Hebrews, "Despite this, it remains nothing more than just a theory, as Apologists point out that there is no evidence that Smith ever did encounter the book in his lifetime."

John Foxe was correct to remove it, since the statement was incorrect. FAIR notes that Joseph publicly mentioned View of the Hebrews. The following quote comes from the FAIR Wiki page Book of Mormon/Authorship theories/View of the Hebrews. According to FAIR: There was, however, a reference to View of the Hebrews within Joseph Smith's lifetime, but it came from the prophet himself. In an article published in the Times and Seasons on June 1, 1842, Joseph quoted View of the Hebrews in support of the Book of Mormon: If such may have been the fact, that a part of the Ten Tribes came over to America, in the way we have supposed, leaving the cold regions of Assareth behind them in quest of a milder climate, it would be natural to look for tokens of the presence of Jews of some sort, along countries adjacent to the Atlantic. In order to this, we shall here make an extract from an able work: written exclusively on the subject of the Ten Tribes having come from Asia by the way of Bherings Strait, by the Rev. Ethan Smith, Pultney, Vt., who relates as follows: "Joseph Merrick, Esq., a highly respectable character in the church at Pittsfield, gave the following account: That in 1815, he was leveling some ground under and near an old wood shed, standing on a place of his, situated on (Indian Hill)... [Joseph then discusses the supposed phylacteries found among Amerindians, citing View of the Hebrews p. 220, 223.][2]

Roger Penumbra (talk) 20:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I have left you a message at Book of Mormon witnesses
I've left you a message at the Book of Mormon witnesses discussion page.--John Foxe (talk) 22:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Replied on the page. Routerone (talk) 22:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If you ever have an interest in communicating off Wikipedia, you can easily reach me by e-mail via my homepage. All the best, John Foxe (talk) 20:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Joseph Smith
Excuse me, but you said you would discuss the changes on the talk page before taking any action. You're just reverting everything without saying a word in the discussion, this is how edit wars end up starting! Routerone (talk) 13:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You are in danger of violating WP:3RR. You have attempted to make extensive revisions to the lead and have deleted cited material with no explanation. The lead has been the subject of extensive negotiation over many months; sometimes even single words have been the cause of extended controversy. Changes need to be discussed first on the discussion page.--John Foxe (talk) 13:22, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Why does that include everyone except you then? You seem to make changes to the article on your own free will, yet prohibit others from doing so. Routerone (talk) 13:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If you'll examine my recent changes to Joseph Smith, Jr. you'll discover that the vast majority of them are stylistic improvements rather than substantive change. I'm almost COgden's copy editor.--John Foxe (talk) 13:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Plus may I question, why is it that you remove negatively toned messages against you from your page very quickly (Removed read message), but keep on ones which don't give you anything to hide? Routerone (talk) 13:20, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia rules allow the removal of read messages except for certain disciplinary actions by administrators.--John Foxe (talk) 13:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't say it was against the rules because it isn't. However I was asking why you are so intent on removing critical messages against you only, but not positive ones? Routerone (talk) 13:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Simple. I don't like critical messages. Neutral ones don't bother me.  And I positively enjoy positive ones.--John Foxe (talk) 13:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Are you sure? I'd say its more on the basis that you don't want messages to generate a bad impression of yourself. Routerone (talk) 13:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, write me a nice message that generates a bad impression of me and we'll find out.--John Foxe (talk) 14:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Well obviously you're not going to remove it then are you? What would be the point of doing so anyway, I only leave messages when they are needed, not to see how the reader will respond to them in general. Routerone (talk) 14:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I suggest exercising your sense of humor a bit. Life's a lot less fun if you can't laugh at yourself and you insist on taking everything literally.--John Foxe (talk) 18:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

civility and joseph smith
Hi Routerone. While I understand you (and many) have passionate views about Joseph Smith, Jr., please comment on the content, not the contributors. In particular, these edits use the words "you" and "your" quite a bit, which is fairly indicative of commenting on the contributors. (edit) I'd strongly encourage you to refactor or remove some of the more egregious bits, especially since you were commenting in a section that was devoted to starting over to respect WP:CIVIL. You might need to remove this entire post; I don't know if there is anything salvageable in it. tedder (talk) 16:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I apologize, however Duke53 is being a nuisance, and is interested only in stirring up trouble than contributing to the page. Routerone (talk) 16:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * That very well may be, but that doesn't excuse your behavior. tedder (talk) 16:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't say it did and like I said I apologize, but, the editor in question does indeed have a point against my religion and as a result he likes to disrupt LDS editors. This is further summed up by him openly making fun of the religion on his userpage...


 * Fine. Use WP:DR for issues, then. Take the user's userpage to WP:WQA. "He started it" isn't a good excuse. tedder (talk) 16:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok then, I suppose you're right, attacking editors is only going to shift the blame on me. Routerone (talk) 16:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Well said. That's my concern- you go from being a "victim" to another guilty party. It tends to invalidate your other arguments on Talk:Joseph Smith, Jr. too. tedder (talk) 16:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Although it's been made clear that personal attacks should stop at Talk:Joseph Smith, Jr., I see you've just this afternoon called an editor an "insane wolf". I've told you to stop this and go to dispute resolution if you feel you need to. Actions have consequences, and if you just ignore requests to stop making personal attacks you are probably going to end up blocked or sanctioned in some other way. Dougweller (talk) 16:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Really, this was my point (when I started this section). Those comments need to be removed from the article talk page. tedder (talk) 16:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Routerone. Thanks for the offer. I've been reading some of the posts from others trying to "neutralize" you and I think I should at least offer they are speaking respectfully and so have you in response. You strike me as a guy quick to speak up, but also quick to admit an error. I also hear exactly where you are coming from. At first I was incredibly incensed at the disrespect shown to Joseph Smith, Mormons, and our faith. But then I stepped back and asked myself what Joseph would himself say about such stuff, and I thnk his response would be something akin to, 'the dogs may bark but the caravan carries on.' So I agree, let's rise above the mud-slinging and meet Joseph's detractors with the plain, courteous, and enduring truths about Joseph. I think that's what Jesus would do. Yours in truth.

Canadiandy1 (talk) 08:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy