User talk:Storm Rider/Archive 4

Recent Comment
I cant imagine anything more depressing than devoting time to wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.7.188.153 (talk) 03:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Your recent comment on my page doesn't make sense to me. How is removing vandalism not constructive? I'm not really sure why you reverted my edit. 24.68.237.17 18:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The notice should not have gone to you; VandalProof, the program I use to revert vandalism, will occaisionally post to the wrong account. I revert the edit to your page; sorry for the software error. I should have caught it when I posted it. --Storm Rider (talk) 18:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem, I actually guessed that something like this happened, and that I got a comment for someone else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.68.237.17 (talk) 19:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Species integration nominated for deletion
As someone who has commented on Articles for deletion/Most ancient common ancestor, you are invited to comment on another article by the same author which I just nominated for deletion. The same author coined a new article Species integration which similar theme with two completely irrelevant references, after the 'most ancient common ancestor' article was deleted. I removed these two irrelevant references, and commented on these on the Talk:Species integration page.

The new nomination/discussion page is at: Articles for deletion/Species integration.

Thanks. Fred Hsu 01:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The Latter Day Church of Jesus Christ
Since you removed The Latter Day Church of Jesus Christ from Category:Latter Day Saint denominations, will you also be removing it's description from Latter Day Saint movement? -- 159.182.1.4 18:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * This group is currently impossible to get any sources for its reality or the size of its membership. When I read the website I almost get the impression that it is a farce...The Book of Mormon as if Dr. Seuss had written it? That type of drivel leads me to think it is simply a fellow having a go with an overactive imagination.
 * Given the lack of sources for the group, it would be hard to call it a denomination. If sources can not be identified I would support deleting the article and thus the question of removing it from Latter Day Saint movement is moot for right now. --Storm Rider (talk) 18:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that The Latter Day Church of Jesus Christ should be deleted (I did add the prod today) but was unsure if it should be removed from Latter Day Saint movement now or wait, but I'm fine with waiting on that. I'm really curious to see if the prod will be removed. Since IP editors can't properly initiate a AfD, if the prod is removed but proper sources are not provided, would you be willing to initiate the AfD? -- 159.182.1.4 19:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was wondering why I could not find the listing. I think I will probably list it formally this evening. --Storm Rider (talk) 20:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

See Talk:The Latter Day Church of Jesus Christ for my explanation and a question re Category:Latter Day Saint denominations. Briefly stated, I had not included the source used in my creation of the two articles primarily because the source is a "forthcoming" manuscript and I was unsure whether to wait for publication or not in referencing it, but it is a revised edition of a reliable source that the information came from. The group not a "farce", as you have suggested, regardless of your personal views of their beliefs. (Incidentally, some of your comments on 159.182.1.4's page sound eerily like early criticisms of the Book of Mormon and J. Smith's church! What goes around comes around, I guess.) :) –SESmith 22:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, as long as you are worried about LDS groups that have no references, there are others articles that don't even refer to primary sources: see eg, Pentecostal Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Pure Church of Christ, Righteous Branch of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. There are probably others. In light of this, I'm not sure why the rush to delete The Latter Day Church of Jesus Christ was so swift. I'm not trying to justify the article's existence through a WP:WAX argument, I'm just explaining why I thought I was safe waiting a bit for the publication of the source. I guess that was not a safe decision! :) –SESmith 22:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I remeber working with another editor in the past on this topic and we could not get any references at that time. The farce part of my comments stem directly from a quote off of their website...Dr. Seuss' translation of the Book of Mormon. IMO that is less than professsional and borders on the absurd; as if it is a joke. Other parts of their website seem real, but nothing I saw provides any evidence of membership outside of Mr. Gil. --Storm Rider (talk) 22:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Incidently, this article had a previous life here on Wikipedia and was deleted also. This has been around longer than July 2007, but was previously purged from Wikipedia. I don't really have a fire burning for this specific article, but I have been paying attention to AfDs of late and I would guess most of these articles could be deleted if they were nominated.
 * This guy makes me uncomfortable because I seriously can not tell if he is serious or if it really is just a bad joke. The website is not helpful in providing a real position for me and creates more questions than answers. A website is too easy to create for me to think there is any notability or validity to the site. Does that make sense? --Storm Rider (talk) 22:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I understand what you mean. He's been interviewed by the author of the book I cited, and he at least is convinced he and the group are "for real".


 * I don't think the Dr. Seuss thing is unique to their group and to me it looks like it was put there merely as a source of amusement for their members. It (or similar offerings) has been available on the internet for awhile now; see HERE and HERE, for example. –SESmith 23:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Your removal re Criticism of Mormonism
The problem with your request for a reference and stating the change as an opinion, is that I consulted CS Lewis' Mere Christianity, and the quote is an abstraction from a much longer discussion where Lewis does not suggest anything like the original writer of the article intended. Lewis used the term "god" in a the sense of becoming "like Christ", not at all like the writer of this section suggests. It would require an extensive verbatim quote from Lewis of 3-5 paragraphs to make the point. The other option I considered was to remove the Lewis reference entirely from this article because of the problem here. So it is not my opinion, and the problem requires fixing. Do you have a better idea? Leaving this as it is won't do. With respect, Fremte 17:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Vistas High School
The article has been renamed correctly as Vistas High School Program. There is a discussion on a possible merge to its parent article at Klein ISD Merge. Your input is welcome. – Dreadstar †  22:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Shrem Class
Hello In reference to your question posted on August 7th on the Sephardic Pizmonim Project, Gabriel Shrem taught a Sephardic Hazzanut class at the Yeshiva University Cantorial Institute. They also call it Bels Academy. Shrem passed away 21 years ago, but the class is still active with a new instructor. I'd be happy to answer further questions.David Betesh

LDS Church article
Hi, Storm. I did think the original sentence was a little overdone, with modest overtones of Catholic/Protestant images of Christ as well as the LDS viewpoint. If your objective is to define the Church's view of Christ and his central importance, we could use a quote or paraphrase one. The material below is from lds.org/church library or we could get something from the LDS encyclopedia. As it was, I only modified the sentence a little, which you are of course free to revert. Best. WBardwin 04:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Jesus Christ is the Only Begotten Son of God the Father in the flesh. He was the Creator, He is our Savior, and He will be our Judge. Under the direction of our Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ created the earth. Through His suffering in the Garden of Gethsemane and by giving His life on the cross—that is, by performing the Atonement—Jesus Christ saves us from our sins as we follow Him. Through His Resurrection, Jesus Christ saves us from physical death. Because He overcame death, we will all be given the gift of resurrection. (lds.org/church library)

Balkanization of Lists
I have to strongly agree with your view on List of British Chinese people. I think the list of people method has gotten out of control. Lists of people were never meant to house all people of a nationality. And that's what the American and British lists want to do. Does List of Germans have anywhere close to all notable Germans? Please. Lists are meant to put THE MOST representative people of the nationality and a given occupation. Not everybody. Exact same issue at Articles for deletion/List of British Asian people. Bulldog123 18:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

hello
Hi Storm Rider,

Yes, all is well, just took an extended break punctuated by minor edits here and there. I'm going to try to pick things up a little bit now, but we'll see how it goes. Good to see you're still around and active. :-)

Wesley 04:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!
Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Storm Rider! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page.  Daniel  10:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Bigamists
Could you help out at Category:American bigamists? A user is trying to change the definition away from that of criminality (being convicted of bigamy) to one of simply having more than one spouse at once. This, of course, will expand the category to include dozens of articles about 19th century Mormon polygamists, and I thought the idea was that we didn't categorize people according to marital status. The people included in this category, I thought, were there because of an actual conviction for bigamy. Thanks. Rich Uncle Skeleton 07:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I gave up. Please see my nomination HERE. Rich Uncle Skeleton 09:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Thinning of Category:Christianity
Trinity is no longer in the category, nor I believe any other entries in Category:Conceptions of God. Consider when I started this project over a year ago there were nearly a thousand articles listed directly under Category:Christianity. I cannot locate every questionable entry, research its placement, and make the edit at once, as the labyrinth of Christianity's subcategories are often themselves severely neglected.-choster 01:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Just a niggling point about VP
Hi,

The edit summary for your last edit to the History of Christianity article says that you reverted my last edit using VP but it appears that, in fact, you were reverting back to my last edit and reverting the change from "scholars" to "Christians" made by User:68.175.20.30.

I'm OK with your revert but I'm concerned about the erroneous edit summary. It would appear the VP (VandalProof?) made an error in creating the automatically generated edit summary. Do you agree? What would have caused VandalProof to mess up in this way and is it worth reporting to the author?

--Richard 06:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Submitted WP:RfC on John Foxe
For more info, see Requests_for_comment/John Foxe.

One other person needs to certify the RfC within 48 hours or it will be deleted. More information 74s181 06:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Care to comment? LDS issue
Care to comment at Talk:The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ? I've been referred to you multiple times as someone who is quite knowledgeable in the Latter Day Saint articles area. Thanks. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 23:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Barnstar
Wow, I certainly didn't expect that. I've really been wondering if I've been doing the right thing being so persistent on the First Vision article. I've had several interesting things happen over the last week or so that made me believe I should continue, and this is one more. Thanks! 74s181 04:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Anon 219.90.203.129
I am confused. I see that you reverted vandalism / joke edit by User talk:219.90.203.129, and then left him a "welcome" message on his talk page. I have avoided doing something like that because I think it gives a mixed message. Did you do that on purpose? -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) (Talk) 17:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I am using VP (VandalProof) and it has not been the best of experiences. Currently, it is running but with a few bugs. This was an error on my part; I clicked a button that I thought was going to give me the opportunity to choose an appropriate warning; instead it left something else and immedately saved it. Maybe I should have reverted my own edit and then replaced it with a more appropriate warning manually, but I just left it. Sorry Bill. --Storm Rider (talk) 18:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Spelling
You may be right, but I think it was precisely about this article that the question arose earlier. The Wikipedia rule is, if I remember right, that the style of spelling that was used in the first version of the article (if that can be determined) or that was used in the first major change showing a choice of style should be followed. The person who earlier wanted to US-ize the spelling was at first counting as US style every instance of the word "practice" and every verb that ended in -ize. When he realized that outside the US the noun "practice" is always spelled in that way and that only the verb is written "practise", and that "-ize" (not only "-ise") is an accepted verb ending outside of the USA, he changed his mind. Note that I undid your US-ization of two words in the article saying only that "perhaps" it was unnecessary to change. Would you care to examine the earliest versions of the article to see which style should be adopted according to Wikipedia rules? (You will have noticed that, though I do not use US spelling, I prefer the Greek-derived "-ize" to the French-derived "-ise".) Lima 18:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I don't think it is that big of an issue. I believe your understanding of the Manual of Style is similar to my own; however, I still believe the intent is that articles either take one style or the other and not both. I support whatever makes the goup content and my efforts were only directed to improve the article. Cheers! --Storm Rider (talk) 20:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

VP edit summaries broken
Not sure if it's a user setting or an error in the software, but I wanted to point out that your edit summaries from your most recent VP edits have all been wrong. They've been saying that certain users have been reverted, when if you check the page history, that hasn't been the case. -Andrew c [talk] 14:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Eagle Scout
Your edit summary on Eagle Scout (Boy Scouts of America) isEagle Scout (Boy Scouts of America) odd. It shows "(Reverted edits by Rlevse (talk) to last revision (159358927) by using VP)", but the revert was of edits by 151.188.16.21 to the version by Rlevse. Possibly an artifact of VP, but you might want to keep an eye on it. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 14:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Goofed
Either you or your VP program goofed, the summary says you reverted my edits, see, but you really reverted an anon IP edit back to my last version. I am not a vandal, I am an admin.Rlevse 15:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, the VP program seems to be having a rather high number of bugs lately; I apologize for error. I am new to VandalProof, but I am beginning to think that it is more trouble than it is worth; however, it seems to be able to faciliate a lot of actions if the bugs were only corrected. Again, sorry for the error. --Storm Rider (talk) 15:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It happens. I gave up VP some time back and switched to WP:Twinkle.  It has worked without a hitch from day one.
 * Technology is not doing its job unless it dashes someone's hopes and dreams on a daily basis. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 15:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand. VP is so buggy I gave up on it. Now I use popups and my admin rollback button.Rlevse 15:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Satanic
Ugh. I'm sorry, but I don't think I can emotionally distance myself from that article sufficiently to comment on it in a useful way. I've been dealing with this garbage too much in real life lately and it's starting to get to me, so in this case it'd probably be better if I didn't get involved. But I appreciate your seeking me out. --Masamage ♫ 06:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I've been watching the article since it was created, along with the new category "Mormonism and Violence". Can't do much until next week when I'm back in town. I'm surprised that the article doesn't mention Decker's 1993 film The God Makers II, in which Decker attempts to use the Pace memo to tie Satanism with the church and with Joseph Smith. No mention or reference in the article...a bit odd. Bochica 15:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

RLDS
Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is still a big problem. It is nothing more than a POV fork. I think it should be AFD'd. Thoughts? IvoShandor 22:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for fighting vandalism ...
... but please don't break ClueBot's redirect as you have done here. Thanks. -- Cobi(t 15:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

On my edit to gay, transgender etc. characters in video games
My edit wasn't even close to vandalism. All I did was change a lie into a fact, and it was reverted within 30 seconds. Please try to be a little less trigger-happy in the future

Proof of innocence: http://www.schoolkids-sg.com/weblog/postimages/20060906-2.jpg - directly from the SMB2 manual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.209.226.65 (talk) 04:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Your edit was interpreted to be an attempt to vulgarize a known term. Further, there was not need for the change. I would encourage you not to be so sensitive and to be more careful in your edits. Just because some one corrects your edits should not be taken as a personal affront. Cheers, --Storm Rider (talk) 04:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * BTW, I would not use that link to support your proclaimed position of evidence. You may need to review what a reliable source is. --Storm Rider (talk) 04:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edit to Joseph Smith, Jr.
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from. Please be careful when editing pages and do not remove content from Wikipedia without a good reason, which should be specified in the edit summary. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. —Remember the dot (talk) 03:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Why on earth would you welcome an editor that has been here for a considerably longer period than you? It is one of the shortfalls of using templates blindly. Your edit to Joseph Smith did nothing to improve the article so I don't see why you would issue a warning for "deleting information". You might want to review the purpose of using warning templates and use better judgement in when to apply them. You did no harm, but it is just an annoying approach to editing. --Storm Rider (talk) 06:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * (replying to message on my talk page) - You're right, I probably should have written a more personalized message. You do have to understand that I was annoyed that you would revert my edit with the completely unrelated explanation "spelling". For one thing, my edit added a link to Joseph Smith (disambiguation), which is necessary for proper navigation through pages. —Remember the dot (talk) 18:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Book of Mormon GA on hold for seven days
Your help is needed during this period to resolve final issues before GA status. Wrad 23:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

My edit of User:TheJosh/Chicken
I think it was proper to revert it, but I didn't do anything wrong - the point of that page is to vandalize it.--69.138.69.107 23:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. Storm Rider (talk) 21:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I only reverted half the vandalism by mistake. There was really no need to warn me like that, though. Thanks – Gurch 21:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Your continued misdelivery of warning messages to my talk page isn't exactly filling me with confidence. That's three, now – Gurch 21:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Check your page and be accurate if you are going to point a finger. VP made the second error; it should have gone to the Anon; I correct manually as I directed on your talk page. I have also removed the warning from your page. In the future, if you are going to correct vandalism; correct all the vandalism. --Storm Rider (talk) 21:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

.
Talk:History of education in the United States. --77.179.92.57 20:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to move this to userspace...
P.S. That IP comes along to re-add the crazy aliens nonsense every few months or so. Thanks for removing it while I wasn't around, and for redacting their attacks on my talk. Van Tucky  Talk 21:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank You
Thanks very much for reverting the vandalism on my talk page, much appreciated. Ryan (talk/contribs) 21:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * He's just this second vandalised an article after his final warning therefore I've reported him to WP:AIV. Thanks again for the reversion. Ryan (talk/contribs) 21:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment from 83.104.46.6
dont have a clue how to use wikipedia, but uve messaged me saying ive done something on a page called tikiabilla, this is not true. anyway. just thought ide let you know! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.46.6 (talk • contribs) 21:47, 4 November 2007
 * This is a bit confusing; first of all there is no article by the name above, and second, the only warnings or edits to your discussion page came from wrp103 (Bill Pringle) regarding your edits on Final Fantasy. If you are seeking some help to understand Wikipedia and how to edit, I noticed that wrp103 left you a welcome message with several links; just click on any one of them and they will take you to a page which will greatly assist you learn how to contribute. Cheers. --Storm Rider (talk) 06:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

SRA
I added the article you suggested to the current nomination and commented. Hope you don't mind. Either articles would indeed do. I do like yours better though. We'll see what happens. Carter | Talk to me 16:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Book of Mormon
Hi Storm Rider

The first edit to the Book of Mormon aricle dated Nov 21 is clearly "not appropriate". However, I'm not reverting it as I have been away and I don't know how far back in the history to go to get a good version.

Best wishes, Wanderer57 (talk) 14:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Endowment Ceremony
I'm having a bit of trouble with an anonymous IP that want to censor Endowment (Latter Day Saints). If you can help, I would appreciate it.Kww (talk) 12:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Sect vs Denomination
could you throw in your 2 cents on this topic here TIA -- Trödel 03:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Degrees of Glory Merge
As you have been a recent contributer to Degrees of glory or a related page, I wanted to give you heads up on my Merger proposal: Talk:Degrees of glory Descartes1979 (talk) 18:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Brock Soaring
We have another LDS member having trouble with the concept of an encyclopedia including sacred information, on Endowment (Latter Day Saints).Kww (talk) 19:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, it has proceeded to ANI].Kww (talk) 01:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Book of Mormon article - Proposed Changes
Hello Storm Rider:

I'm putting this note here because I see your name in the edit history of the Book of Mormon article and talk. There have been two "batches" of changes to the article recently. As I explained in the Talk, I reversed these changes, not because of the substance of the changes but because of the "process". Talk:Book of Mormon

I'm hoping you and others will look at the substance of these changes. I don't want the people who made the changes to think their efforts were reversed and then simply ignored. (And I'm not able to comment seriously on the proposed changes.)

The two batches of changes I'm referring to are the ones made on December 15 by 24.2.75.193, and on December 17 by DJ Clayworth. (Because the changes were reversed, the best place to see them is through the article history.)

Thank you, Wanderer57 (talk) 18:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Reversion
I reverted that last edit because it definitely fits better on the talk page of the article. The article itself is not a place to discuss its progress and/or direction. Thanks! Tanthalas39 (talk) 16:18, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I undid my reversion. I haven't had enough coffee yet to be doing edits, apparently. My sincere apologies.

One last comment
I know you said to move along, but I always dawdle just a bit. Do you think you could find a reliable reference that shows that the term is generally considered offensive by the LDS? If you could, describing the slang that way would be quite acceptable to me. I became sensitive to this kind of issue with the word "Jap" of all things ... I think of it as a horribly offensive term, and used to get extremely angry with people that used it. The British use it as a simple abbreviation, though, and mean no apparent harm with it (the same way I usually refer to "British people" as "Brits", without rancor). It took several arguments before I realized that I wasn't dealing with closet racists, and they actually had no idea what I was on about. I still tend to edit any table I see that uses "JAP" as an abbreviation to use "JPN", but I don't see the authors as racist. Perhaps ignorant of American culture, but I can't expect people that haven't lived in America to be anything else.Kww (talk) 13:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Kww, this topic is a bit tiresome simply because it is a mole hill being made into a mountain. When it comes to abbreviations, JAP or JPN, is easy to see that no offense is intended. However, I find it difficult to believe that English speakers do not recognize that calling the Japanese people Japs is offensive. England may have slightly different morays, but in the US it is crystal clear how offensive that type of language is. All of those types of words are offensive: micks, wetbacks, wops, niggers, japs, chinks, etc.; none are appropriate or acceptable in civil society. Slang is something that is not used in proper society, though it is common primarily among the young and taints other segments of society.
 * I spent a few minutes looking a "Mormon underwear, offensive" on Google as well as "slang". I did not quickly find a reference to support what words LDS find offensive when discussing garments; however, what is disturbing is the attempt to demonstrate that use of the term is either out of ignorance or those who hold the religion in contempt. Granted, there may be good-hearted teasing at times, but in a article of this type it would seem better to not to protect ignorance. --Storm Rider (talk) 20:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

reformed Egyptian
Not that your involvement will affect John Foxe's opinion, but I'd appreciate some help in what has essentially devolved into an edit war over on reformed Egyptian. John is insistent on including information that we previously removed based on discussion on the talk page. When the discussion didn't go his way, he left in a rather childish way. Recently he has taken to reinserting the same information, but the objections brought to this inclusion have never been satisfactorily answered. SESmith, one of the other editor who opposed John last time is a bit quiet these days, but I have asked User:Snocrates, who also recently reverted one of JF's attempt, to comment and assist. I have also requested a 3rd opinion given that it is essentially JF and myself arguing on the discussion at this time (and I realize that you, having dealt with both of us in the past can't provide one), so perhaps it would be better to wait and see what, if anything, comes before involving you, but I'd like to at least like to begin making sure this discussion/edit war isn't lost due to it not being on many people's radars. Thanks. --FyzixFighter (talk) 00:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Question
I see that you are a mormon. Can you shed light on this question?

Incidentally, I see the above article mentions John Foxe. He has been open about having an agenda to edit "the truth" into Mormon articles. Tenditious. --Blue Tie (talk) 11:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

SO I guess I'm the newb in the crew about all this wikipedia stuff, especially where editing's concerned. Care to give me low-down on what's acceptable for editing and such? Oh, yeah, and KWW referred me to you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Novacommander (talk • contribs) 20:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Let me know if you tire of referrals
Novacommander seemed to have potential as an editor, so I sent him your way. Let me know if me doing that with frustrated LDS editors becomes tiresome.Kww (talk) 00:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Mormonism and history merge proposal
Please weigh in on the merger proposal between History of the Latter Day Saint movement and Mormonism and history. I saw that you were a recent contributor of one of the pages in question, and thought you would be interested.--Descartes1979 (talk) 21:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Red letters at BoM
I think something's wrong with the religious text project template. I left a not for them awhile back, but to no avail. Wrad (talk) 20:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem is with that template. I took it out for now. I left the code in the edit summary so it is not lost. It is :       Wanderer57 (talk) 21:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The Book of Mormon
Hello Storm Rider:

I see another editor (Rettet) just added support in the Talk page for reverting back to prior to the batch of recent edits.

I also see a couple of editors actually made a revert to January 15, though these reverts were undone.

I also see (my wording is getting boringly repetitious - sorry) that you are starting to edit the article again.

You will know much better than I whether it would be a good idea to revert to Jan 15 say, and work from there OR to work from the current version.

I will support either approach. Please advise me. Thanks. Wanderer57 (talk) 21:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Me again. Thanks for your note.


 * "we need to ensure we distinguish between beliefs and historical fact" Excellent point. To me, that was the outstanding issue with some recent edits.


 * "I wonder if we should not just use a brief outline" What do you think of the present outline?  I will review it also.  Wanderer57 (talk) 03:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Edits that I made (And will remake when I get enough chutzpah) to the LDS page
You say:

"could you please define who a Christian is using just the words of Jesus from the Bible?"

As you may or may not know, Jesus actually says very little in the bible compared to the entire text. How could Jesus define Christianity as it effectively had no followers prior to his death other than his mother and his apostles? J the B, Peter, and Paul were certainly attempting to prostelityze his name, but let's effectively state that Christianity begins at which point he ascends into heaven (Assuming that we take the events of the bible factually, we at least know that factually Christians exist).

As I stated on one of my edits, if belief in Christ is enough to warrant being called a Christian, then Jews and Muslims are Christians because they both acknowledge the existence of Jesus, as a prophet no less, just not as the only son of God.

The issue of Christianity is threefold.

Firstly: The belief that Jesus died on the cross for our salvation

Secondly: That Jesus is Gods only son and that accepting him as your personal savior is the only way to heaven.

Thirdly: That God sent his only son to earth to save mankind, and as part of that belief sent himself, thus 2/3rds of the holy trinity is established.

The bible is very concrete on the existence of the trinity as one entity, whereas Mormonism believes that God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit/Ghost are three separate cognizant beings.

References to the trinity are to be found here:

http://www.gotquestions.org/Trinity-Bible.html

Someone uses this site as a reference for calling Mormons Christians, but you can't pick and choose your biblical beliefs and still call yourself a Christian.

Because the Mormons believe the head of their Church to be receiving correspondence directly from God, anything they say is therefore Gospel in their church. According to doctrine released by the church (James Talmage, Articles of Faith, p. 35. 1985) they believe that the trinity are three separate beings - which goes against what the bible says, ergo cannot be Christian.

You say "In your research you may want to read the Christian article."

I say: Wikipedia is not peer reviewed no matter the process it takes to post on it. It's full of non-primary sources and in and of itself is not a primary source. The only sources that can be used to discuss Christianity is the bible. The only things that can be used to discuss mormonism are the bible, the BOM, the pearls of great price, and whatever crap books they use as doctrine (Articles of faith, et al).

You say "Interestingly, if you use the parameter that someone must believe in the Trinity to be a Christian then you would also have to say that Jesus, the twelve apostles, and all his other disciples fail the test. The doctrine of the Trinity did not exist as a "doctrine" until 325"

I say that the references in the Bible to the Trinity predate 325, by thousands of years, and that Jesus coming into the bible in the new testament is only a fulfillment of the scriptures (As they say in Catholic church). The apostles witnessed the trinity first hand as they met Jesus, who was God and the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, John, Matthew, and Peter (All apostles) wrote about the Trinity in the bible, so how could they fail the Trinity test? Laxinthe303 (talk) 09:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Origin of the Book of Mormon
Please tell me how my edits on this article can stay on wikipedia. Please write your answer in the talk page of Origin of the Book of Mormon.84.146.206.45 (talk) 14:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church
Hi, I read your comment and I added a reference to the infobox. I am really amazed at your argument since it completely ignores the references I have provided to find in favor of an argument for which no one has provided a reliable reference. Please understand that it is really difficult for someone to clearly demonstrate that Jesus is not the founder of both Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Church. When someone on the talk page provides reliable sources to show that this accepted fact by all of Christianity is somehow false, then we should eliminate Jesus name from the infobox. Right now, no one on the talk page has provided anything that will pass WP:RS except me. NancyHeise (talk) 01:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Mormonism and history merge proposal
Storm, I saw your note on Trodel's page and wanted to touch base. I am definately against merging, primarily because placing the topic in History of the Latter Day Saint movement reduces it to a "one time" issue. The most recent pattern of "faith-promoting" history was (as a BYU trained historian, I sincerely hope) a one time event. But Mormonism and history is a much bigger topic, closer to historiography, having implications from Joseph's time to the present. I don't know if this is the right title for such an article, but we are having a restructuring discussion on the Mormonism and history page. Please drop in and give your two cents. And, besides, there is certainly little room for more material in History of the Latter Day Saint movement! Best wishes as always. WBardwin (talk) 03:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Storm, I placed a number of Historiography type ideas on the discussion page and the beginnings of an outline. Please don't think that I'm trying to create another article critical of the movement.  But, as a historian, historical criticism is a valid mechanism.  We are unique in our views of Mormonisms place in history and our strong interest and promotion of historical topics in the church.  Just think about geneology, family history, and temple work.  A history project for the eternities!  I know you and JFoxe butt heads, and I'm sure he will be a strong force on this article.  But the whole idea of Mormon historiography and our historic world view will get lost on History of the Latter Day Saint movement.  It wil become just another paragraph in criticism, when that's not what it is about at all.  Best............ WBardwin (talk) 02:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Death
Hey Storm Rider, despite our disagreements let me express my condolences on the death of your late church president. Str1977 (talk) 09:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church
Hi Stormrider, you were looking for opinions on your edit to eliminate white space. I think I prefer the white space to your edit since there is now a huge space between Origin and Mission heading and the actual paragraph. It looks funny. NancyHeise (talk) 02:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that it looked better before. For me the table of contents makes it hard to read the Origin and Mission section at all. Cheyinka (talk) 02:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's go with what you think looks best. One of the things that is getting lost is the Catholicism portal; the emblem is just so small it loses importance. I moved it to the top for a preview, but just does not work. I wonder if this could be enlarged or something else? I made a further edit to the format to get the TOC over to right. Thoughts now? If this does not work, let just revert. --Storm Rider (talk) 02:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, what do you think of moving the Keys of Heaven picture to the top? It is gettnig pretty croweded where it is now. --Storm Rider (talk) 02:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It looks good with the TOC where it is now, but I agree that the portal box is very hard to see. The Keys of Heaven picture belongs with the Origin and Mission section, though I'm not sure how to get it in there without everything looking even more cluttered. Cheyinka (talk) 02:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I hope you dont mind that I put the format back to the way it was before since that is consistent with most GA's and FA's. I tried to address your concerns over too much white space by increasing the infobox size and Catholicism size.  I think it looks better now and there is less white space.  I have renominated the article for GA as all of the previous GA reviewers comments have been met and all peer review comments too.  One of the FA criteria requires the lead paragraph to sufficiently summarize the article contents.  Right now, if you click on edit this page and read the lead paragraph, it contains that information but when you click on article, most of it disappears.  I don't know why but I am not going to worry about it until we put the article up for FA after it hopefully passes FA.  Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 16:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a difference...
[WP:WTA]] is not a policy. It is a style guideline. But if you believe it is a policy then it must be so. Albatross2147 (talk) 03:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

A little help again please
There has been a small controversy over at Endowment (Latter Day Saints), and I am always out of my depth trying to keep the article complete and objective. Three small details of the gestures were removed, and the sources that I found to back them are being deemed unreliable. I know that you won't vouch for the accuracy of the article. My question is this: do you think that the editor is actually aiming for an accurate article, or is this another issue of sacredness?Kww (talk) 11:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I find this to be an odd question, and not really at all objective. The question should be whether the sources you've linked to are reliable or not. I think the answer is obvious given Wikipedia's standards for reliability. If the sources are not reliable, there is no support for the portions in question, and they should be removed. User:Linus Hawk 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Endowment
I responded on the article's talk page. BTW, Temple garment is getting a pretty heavy series of edits today ... they look legitimate to me, but it never hurts to get another look.Kww (talk) 18:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge Proposal
Please weigh in on the merger proposal between Persons in the Book of Mormon and List of Book of Mormon people. You are receiving this notice since you were identified as a recent editor on one of those pages. Thanks! --Descartes1979 (talk) 19:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge Proposal - Angel Moroni
Please weigh in on the merger proposal between Angel Moroni and Moroni (prophet). You are receiving this notice since you were identified as a recent editor on one of those pages. Thanks! --Descartes1979 (talk) 07:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment on giving time for voting. I couldn't agree more. With the last merge, I moved quickly because there didn't seem to be any opposition whatsoever, and it was a slam dunk in my mind (maybe I was wrong to assume as much - I guess we will see) - so in the spirit of "being bold", I moved forward. For this merger (Angel Moroni) there is a larger potential for opposition, and I planned on giving it more time. Thanks for the reminder! --Descartes1979 (talk) 16:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Misunderstanding
Hey, SR...If you reread the comment, you'll see that I didn't apply the word "churlish" to you. I applied it to the comment preceding yours, to which you responded in good faith. Sorry to have been unclear. JuanFiguroa (talk) 17:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Warning vandals
As you know, it's policy to warn the vandals after reverting their edits. I see you have indeed warned many vandals. I was just curious as to why you didn't regarding vandalism at Mitt Romney. Thanks  Enigma  msg! 23:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know if you do it the same way I do it, but it takes 10 seconds for me. I have Template messages as a bookmark on Firefox so it's on the bar at the top of my screen. When I see vandalism, I revert it, then I open a tab with the User's Talk page, and quickly post the appropriate template. If you don't want to bother with it, I understand. Just explaining my quick process.  Enigma  msg! 00:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I now use WP:TW to make it even quicker. :)  Enigma  message Review 06:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Danites
I saw you did some recent editing on the danites article. I have tagged the article for WP:NPOV and was hoping to get your help to improve the article. Thanks JRN (talk) 01:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Box
The ungainly nav box has been replaced by the tidy Christianity footer. Feel free to add to any/all pages: Christianityfooter. Best, -- SECisek (talk) 17:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Excellent idea; thanks for your work. --Storm Rider (talk) 18:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Response
See my response to your note here. Thanks --Descartes1979 (talk) 17:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Recent edit to Solomon
Not that it matters much, but I think VandalProof must be malfunctioning somehow. You recently reverted and IP to my last edit at Solomon, but VP left a summary that said you were reverting my edits. I don't understand why this is, but I thought you might like to know. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 08:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

About Ascanio Sforza article
Hello,I saw your comment in this article's talk page and because it has been made long ago,I decided to reply here.

I don't agree with your statement about weak introduction. I think it fits the aim. This is an article about a cardinal, not about a wartime hero or a fairy tale knight. So it has to be written in plane style without exaggerations. I am starting major edit and I will make this article different. Good day to you. Drjmarkov (talk) 06:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints‎
Storm -- we have a persistant "Mormons are not Christian" editor on the LDS and related pages. I've reverted on several articles, but am signing off now. If you are around............... WBardwin (talk) 06:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Gave him a final warning and I've been watching him.  Enigma  message Review 07:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Been trying to throw my two cents in, but this guy's just irrational. I do apreciate your diligence in this matter, but as per your last comment I think the time has come to just start ignoring him.  Thanks again. Dayleyj (talk) 20:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Religious beliefs cause some editors to move beyond any concept of just reporting facts to reporting "truth". Unfortunately, new editors get confused with this concept and are bound and determined to shed what they believe is true with the world. They evenutaully get it or get so frustrated they move on. Thanks for your assistance. --Storm Rider (talk) 20:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Your change to Ryan Carnes article
Hi, you reverted my change and put a message on my IP talk page at User_talk:75.177.137.49. I would request that in the future before blindly reverting changes you don't know, that you research the topic. -- "He attended Duke University, where he played in the marching band." -- "where he played in the marching band" -- interview with Ryan -- "Okay, one last thing. Were you actually in the Duke marching band? [response] It’s true."

Duke University marching band page -- -- shows how the Duke band refers to itself as DUMB. Besides these, I was a MEMBER of DUMB at the same time Ryan was (where he was sometimes referred to as "Hot Ryan" -- however that's no encyclopedic) Please revert your changes. Thanks! 75.177.137.49 (talk) 01:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I will not revert the edit. If you want to write the edit in such a way that you reference from an acceptable reference that the band is referred to as DUMB, then it would be an acceptable edit. The way your edit read was too easily interpreted as an attempt to slur the individual and the band itself. Congratulations on being in the marching band. --Storm Rider (talk) 01:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hah, very nice. I think your behavior is absolutely reprehensible as an editor of wikipedia. I will make the change to your exacting standards however. Thanks. 75.177.137.49 (talk) 01:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Your opinion is like breath to the rest of us on wikipedia; thank you for sharing it. Continued good luck in your onging search for editing perfection. --Storm Rider (talk) 03:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of American Board of Thoracic Surgery
A tag has been placed on American Board of Thoracic Surgery requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must include on the external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later." You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Ironholds (talk) 21:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It would be far better to not give notice when it is so quickly deleted! This just tends to tick other editors off. --Storm Rider (talk) 05:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

American Board of Thoracic Surgery
Theres no need to be rude. Do you see a big neon sign on my userpage saying i'm an administrator? no, and thats because i'm not, meaning i have no power to delete your article or restore it, i simply put the notice on. It being deleted is the fault of the CSD-browsing admin, not me. Furthermore, you dont NEED the page back to rewrite it; the entire reason it was deleted is because 95% of it was copied off another site; you may as well start over. Work out the facts before you start hurling claims in all directions. Ironholds (talk) 12:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)