User talk:Bytebear

Do you have or do you know where I could find floor plans for Kirtland Temple? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.63.65.226 (talk) 17:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Start here [1]. Also, check with BYU in Provo, Utah, or with the Community of Christ, owners of the temple. Bytebear 23:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My collection of work is enormous. Seriously enormous. Because of that one particular person and the way he conducts what is presented as official Wikipedia policy, I will not be contributing any more of my photography. I've been trying to figure this system out. I thought I might have found where I can make a positive contribution of some lasting good and that feeling is completely and utterly gone.

You question needs some serious answers. To wit: Ok, so if I am required to use the GFDL-self, then why have the other options available for upload?

If that option is left on the upload page, some other clue needs to be given that an automatic speedy delete is forth-coming. I was trying very, very hard to properly create a page because the very first page I created here was tagged as a speedy delete. Even with what I thought was paranoid caution for my second page, something turns out to have been done incorrectly. Lucky me, a jerk managed to come in and sour my entire attitude about contributing. Oh, and for what it's worth, the guy has some serious inability to read the printed word and yet has the unmitigated gall to inform other people that something was explicit or could not be more clear.

I'll massage other people's text. I'll proof-read or fact-check, but I'm done trying to contribute any real work. TeraGram 06:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to look into it. If I find more difinitive rules, I will let you know. Bytebear 18:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, according to Wikipedia rules found here Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags#For_image_creators, they say "Ideally, we would like you to license your work under a "free" license — with as few restrictions as possible.", however even if you give permission to Wikipedia, if you don't sicense it as free, they will delete it. So they are slowly getting more strict. It's sad really, they are restricting a lot of content that people would be willing to share, but wikipedia wants to essentially own their content, at the same time claiming no ownership of anything. Strange. it seems like a catch 22 to me. I have yet to decide if I want to post pictures or not. Convince me. Bytebear 18:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove the wikilink? You said yourself that "See also" should be used for wikipedia links, and as clearly stated in my comment on the PETA talk page, it's wiki convention not to use external links when we can use an inline link. Jean-Philippe 01:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my bad. I didn't realize one was a web link and the other a wikilink. I have reverted. However, I copied the description of the weblink to the wikilink to make them consistant and avoid POV. -BB

By favoring their own description of themselves as opposed to a neutral and factually correct description, you are in effect being POV. You also omitted to mention the group is opposed to PETA's agenda like l0b0t did, which make it worthless in the context of the article and nothing more than publicity for CCF. Jean-Philippe 01:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. That is why I have changed the description to the wiki page description. -BB

Yay, I'm a slow typer. I just noticed your changes, if what I read on the talk page is correct then the matter is fine. Jean-Philippe 01:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yay!

Bytebear,

I have noticed your persistent deletion of a portion of the text at Temple (Mormonism), along with your assertions that the text you are deleting is POV.

Please note that such deletion is inappropriate and outside the bounds of the WP:NPOV policy. Deleting material under the guise of POV is specifically addressed in the FAQ: Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Lack_of_neutrality_as_an_excuse_to_delete. Specifically, the FAQ also addresses articles on religion and notes that there are specific guidelines as to what these types of articles should contain.

Please discontinue deleting text from the article, and I suggest you read the WP:NPOV policy carefully before asserting accusations of POV in error. Reswobslc 00:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My response is this: If you had read my comments instead of blindly reverting my changes you would have read that my main arguemnt for removal of your text was two part 1) the reference was not verifiable and came from an unreputable source and 2) the inclusion added nothing to the article but sensationalism. Note carefully: NEITHER OF THESE ARGUEMENTS HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH POV. Although, I do think you have a very biased POV and are adding crap to the article just to get your digs in. If you look at the talk page, there are several, in fact many that agree with my position. Examples:

I'm curious what the academic value is of including death penalties overview in this article? Is it to show that the temple ceremonies have changed? Is it that the information is sensational? Not to compare, but I'm looking at the Freemasonry pages, and not only don't they discuss their ceremony, but they don't discuss similar oaths. Why do we go into so much detail here, when other, similarly compared "secretive" ceremonies aren't even on wikipedia? Just curious what the point is of including it here, when wikipedia has declined to do it elsewhere? Is it that relevant to the end reader? -Visorstuff 18:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

---

It would appear you have an agenda that prevents you from acknowledging facts when they are your own. It is unfortunate, but it is what we risk when building a public encyclopedia; we will have bright people that attempt promote neutral writing and then we will have people with private agendas that are not interested in quality writing or facts. Storm Rider (talk) 21:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

---

Seems to me this material is POV and thus should be omitted, not to mention there are more appropriate places to present such information. 66.151.81.244 21:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

---

By the way you state :"WP admins will support me on this one - every religion from Buddhism to Catholicism has people that want to whitewash the articles or to present a non-historical view of the way things are today - which is against the goal of an encyclopedia and is why Wikipedia has a specific policy to address it."

I am an admin. Consensus and this policy declare that one err on the side of documentation, not hearsay, and that sacred things (regardless of religion) be treated with respect. I think that teh appropriate links policy would state that the Packham link would be hearsay. Especially with such incorrect information such as the following paragraph to the throat-slitting one:

" The church when I left had no family home evening, no three-hour block of meetings, no correlation committee, no "Strengthening the Members" committee, no Blacks (they were called "Negroes" then).

Either Packham left the church prior to 1900, or he loses credibility about his knowledge of the church with this sentence. Facts: In 1915 President Joseph F. Smith instituted "Home Evening" [4]. Formal organization of a Priesthood Correlation Program occurred in 1908, and the first black I know of that was baptized into the church took place in 1830 (Elijah Abel was baptized in 1831, and held the priesthood, as did his children and grandchildren until the priesthood was extended to all worthy men).

Now all of that is irrelevant aside from finding credible sources (the Tanners are probalby the best for this one). I believe that you treat these articles with respect (thank-you by the way), but I think this argument about this detail explores the question on how much detail do we want to go into on these articles. The rest of the article is quite general, this is one of the first "details" given - and as such makes it look like a major part of the endowment - which it is not. I look forward to hearing more on your thoughts above. -Visorstuff 23:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems you are the only one who doesn't get it. Also if you had read carefully, I don't really care what you reveal about the secrest temple rites. I just think they should support the article, which clearly they do not. Now if the paragraph was re-written, which I am thinking about doing, to where all bases can be covered without weasel words or phrases plopped in to shock and titilate the reader, then it would be fine with me.

In order to gain a consensus concerning the issue at anti-Mormon, would you please comment here? --uriah923^(talk) 04:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch on using the userspace transclusion on the no longer operating temples. --Trödel 04:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It's a lot better just by your efforts with the template. I did notice that the Notes label and the notes do not align when the text line wraps. -B

continuing table discussion here - I've tried that and I don't see what I can do to make it better. if you want to try stuff out - feel free to edit my my sandbox --Trödel 17:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		For your tireless efforts to improve The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints article. Lethargy 00:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The POV being pushed is strictly the POV of the LDS church ... we all know that early church leaders were arrested for various cirmes; that would be a good reason to move out of those jurisdictions. I will not sit by idly and allow the LDS church's POV to be used in these articles. Duke53 | ^Talk 22:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC) p.s If the baptism stuff is covered elsewhere I propose that the whole section be deleted.[reply]

I see main articles and cross articles, so the main article should mention baptism for the dead as a key belief, but have the baptism article cover all aspects of it. This is just so all information is available and so articles aren't huge.

As to early church leaders, it's fine to point out their arrests, but 1) the article is not about Joseph Smith or any other church leader and 2) their arrests were not a reason for abandoning settlements as far as I know. I am open to verifiable references that prove me wrong.

As to whether these arrests were valid or warrented should also be included in any article about them. For example, Smith was for the most part under extradition for an assasinatin atempt on Lilburn Boggs which he was later determined to be innocent. So there are two sides ot every story, and I think the editors have done a good job covering all of them. Its not just what you put in wikipedia, but where it is put. so think about where the information would be best served. History of the LDS Church seems more appropriate than an overview article, IMHO. Bytebear 22:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Byte, you will find what you seek in Hugh B. Brown's biography written by his son. If you want more info, just email me. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 07:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you. I just am finding a lot of sup-par referencing right now, and a lot of POV being added specifically to Plural Marriage and Blacks and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Bytebear (talk) 07:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would help if you would explain your reasoning for adding a merge proposal with the Controversies page. Thanks, Storm Rider ^(talk) 23:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did, but was not logged in, so it is probably listed as anonymous. I know this has been discussed before, but I still don't see the need for two articles. particularly one that is just a bullet list. Maybe List of Mormon Controveries? Bytebear 23:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see no need at all for the Controversies article; it is a list, nothing more. Do you know if lists are appropriate for articles? Some of the older editors will dislike the merger, but let's let them speak for themselves. Storm Rider ^(talk) 02:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are there 'controversies' sections in articles for other religions? If not then get rid of this one; if there are then I say that this one should stand as well. Duke53 | ^Talk 02:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the article Controversy there is a list of specific controversies, and the only specific religion mentioned is Mormonism with two links (both redirecting to Controversies regarding The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) and Jehovah's Witnesses: controversies. Other issues are more conceptual like King James Only Controversy (disambiguation) or about a specific event like George W. Bush military service controversy.

I personally think throwing all of Mormonism over the coals is a bad idea because it would be a huge article to fully explore each issue, or it becomes a basic list which isn't really an article. I think the prefered method is to include controvercial issues in main articles, or hava an article about each specific issue. I think in the LDS article, the Mountain Meadow Massacre is a good example of how it should be done. Mention the issue in NPOV and link to further information. Unfortunately, what happens is both sides of the arguement keep adding thier points and the section gets bloated. This is why I am hesitant to even put issues on the main article unless it relates directly to the issue at hand. A lot of people regard this as POV by omission, but there are several dozen articles on LDS beliefs. Combine that with articles about the LDS Movement, Mormon offshoot religions, or historical articles not related directly to the LDS church, and you have way too much information to handle on one page.

I think we should weave in any information in the "Controversies" section into the article or omit it (for example I think isses other Christians have about the Trinity is really irrelivant to the main LDS article). Currently there are three controvery articles about the LDS church that I know of: Anti-Mormon, an article about history of anti-Mormon issues and how it is presented, etc. Criticism of Mormonism which I can see getting way too big if we cover every issue in the article, and Controversies regarding The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints which is basically a list of controverial LDS issues. Bytebear 02:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. So my vote is: No "controveries" section within an individual article, but put the controverial info where it belonds within the article. Separate articles for each issue so they can be addressed fully. List article for each of the separate controveries. Get rid of the "Controveries" article. Bytebear 03:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

Oh, and if you want to see a really POV article, check out People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. Bytebear 03:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having trouble with one of the paragraphs. By the way, thanks a TON for the work on it. It looks great! The problem paragraph deals with the support groups that are not affiliated with the Church. The way it read originally, it seemed as if one might imply that they are supported by the Church, when in fact they are not. Here is the original paragraph:

"The Church's opposition to homosexuality has spawned support groups for gay men and women like Affirmation and Gamofites. More recently, a small liberal branch of Mormonism has been established calling itself Reform Mormonism."

I rewrote it like this:

"The Church's opposition to homosexual relations has resulted in the creation of multiple LDS-oriented support groups not affiliated with the Church. These groups include both those dedicated to affirming gay identity, such as Affirmation and Gamofites, as well as those dedicated to helping those who wish to change such as Evergreen International."

The main reason for the change is that if we include information on the pro-affirmation groups here, it seems a balance to include information on pro-change groups. I'm ok with that. My problem is that it seems to start getting too long in proportion to the rest of the section. The rest of the family section doesn't go into significant detail about other programs. Again, reference above where I talk about how these groups aren't affiliated with the Church. Hope I don't sound critical of you. I think you're doing a great job. You can respond on my talk page if you'd like. :) Sylverdin 19:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I saw your ideas for shortening the article and I like them. I apologize that I can't give you more feedback on all of them, but I have worked on the family section. I don't have a lot of time to dedicate to it, but it looks good to me. Concerning the family section, I have a hard time putting it under "culture." The LDS teachings on family are an essential part of the beliefs section. In fact, the whole subject of the Church's World Wide Leadership Training last year was the family. I renamed it simply "family" and put Eternal Marriage and the Proclamation at the beginning. I think we need to keep those parts. I'm unsure about the rest of the section, so I left it alone. Maybe take out the part on same-gender issues. Or make a new article about it. FHE seems to fit, but maybe could be shortened. :D Sylverdin 22:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like your idea of a separate FHE article. I suggested separating the doctrines of Eternal Families from the cultural aspects of the church. For example, FHE, although a church program is not essential (per-say) for salvation. Also, there are so many programs about strengthening families, that it seems the main LDS article is not big enough to handle it all. I think we can blend the info on to one paragrah in the LDS article, and then separate the doctrines for the practices in supporting articles. I will look over your changes right now, and thanks for the help. I have been hesitant to remove anything for fear of starting up another revert war. Bytebear 23:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not edit quotes! I don't know where that 'rule' you quoted ("You cannot annotate a quote with bold! Clearly POV. let the quote speak for itself") came from but I copied the quote I cited exactly the way it is written ... by changing it you have changed what the ORIGINAL author intended. If you revert it again I will be reporting your action to the admins. Duke53 | ^Talk 01:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the quote is not cited correctly. The actal source is "Comprehensive History of the Church, vol. 1, page 441" which is what should be cited. Second, the emphasis is by the author of the webite, which is HUGELY POV because it's an anti-Mormon source. The reference should change and the empahsis removed. Bytebear 02:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Care to show me your version? Until then the one I displayed will have to do. Duke53 | ^Talk 02:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HELLO? The website specifically points to the citation in the article. It was a quote from a speech. I don't recall BOLD being used in speeches, do you? The emphases was added by the website author, and is not part of the speech. Now, if you want to discuss it further and avoid the 3R rule, take it to the talk page. In the meantime I will see if I can find a web version of the original quote. Bytebear 02:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you recall inflections of voice being used for emphasis in a speech? ... BOLD = inflection when written. Do you suppose that this guy whispered the speech?Duke53 | ^Talk 03:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Bytebear, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Duke53 | ^Talk 03:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm... what did I remove? Find the original source. Move the discussion to the LDS talk page. Bytebear 03:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Thanks Leth! Bytebear 03:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duke, please read the edit summary, it was NOT a legitimate use of that template, and I was the one who removed it. --Lethargy 03:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. If it turns into a revert-war, we'll need to set up mediation; otherwise, it looks like it's devolved into weirdness and sexism ("Lady"?) rather than a discussion of sources or of policy. Which really isn't worth the time of anyone involved.

I appreciate your support. It felt a lot better to see someone else's name in there. --Masamage 05:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reorganized the lists of frameworks. In doing so, I overwrote your table that you created. I'll put the table back in a minute. Sorry.

• Wdflake 22:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I was freaking out, cuz I was moving some stuff around too, and noticed that sections were being moved around. I do think that .Net should be moved to the N section alphabetically though. Bytebear 22:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me if this sounds like a dumb idea. I'm thinking that since many of the tables are getting more complicated, screen real-estate is needed. I'm thinking of shortening the displayed urls from something like http://www.oracle.com/technology/consulting/9iservices/jheadstart.html down to www.oracle.com. Is that a good or bad idea? --Wdflake 01:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look at what I did for PHP. I shortened the links to a name, "Home page" mostly, and added columns to better compare the frameworks. There is a lot of info to fill in however. Bytebear 01:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has been selected as the November Mormon collaboration of the month. I look forward to working with you on it. --uriah923^(talk) 21:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoo hoo. I hope we can streamline the content and get it to be a featured article again. Bytebear 21:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bytebear, since there is no earlier version of Peter Pan than the 1924, I thought it's right to move it to (film), after naming conventions. That's a redirect page in need of cleaning. Is this a matter to discuss or ask administrators? It's no big deal for one film, but I find this problem more often with films. Hoverfish 00:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the inclusion of the film link. I had no idea there was a silent version, and to have it influence Walt Disney is huge. The issue I have with just saying (film) is that it is not necessarily the earliest film that gets the non-standard naming convention, but the most likely version a user might be looking for. So if I search for "Peter Pan Film" it should most likely redirect to the Disney version as this is the most popular. Same thing for (film), In this case (film) goes to redirect as there are several films and so I have no preference. So if one of the films is going to have (film) rather than (1924 film) or (1956 film), I would give it to the Disney version. I actually like the consistancy of the date being in the title because there are several versions. I do think that "Peter Pan movie" and "Peter Pan film" should redirect to the Disney version page. Bytebear 00:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, one might argue that they should redirect to Hook. You can always do another disambiguous page called Peter Pan (film) that lists all the film versions, without all the other references to Peter Pan. Just a thought. Bytebear 00:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying this point. I had misunderstood the guidelines on this. Hoverfish 00:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are no hard and fast rules, but for the most part, if people can agree on naming conventions, then everything works out. There is actually a bit of a discussion on Bill O'Reilly because in the US he is a well known political comentator, but in Australia he is a famous Cricket player. So compromises are made. Go figure. Bytebear 00:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In case you don't see what I wrote on the talk page, I completely agree with you on the need to shorten The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints article. Here is what I wrote:

"I was about to say that the First principles and ordinances of the Gospel section be rewritten to be much shorter, but I see you beat me to it. I completely agree: this and the Plan of Salvation section need to be a lot less wordy, we should try to keep it as simple as possible and avoid deviating from what the sources state. I'm thinking we should use a sledgehammer rather than a chisel and completely rewrite these sections."

Not that I look forward to the task of rewriting this, but it is totally needed. --Lethargy 23:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

no problem - you did a great job with that Infobox - the coding on that stuff requires concentration I usually don't get. I am on a crusade to make articles CJC's main article better like JS - and use proper sub articles -but it is difficult to know where to start. --Trödel 03:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am setting up other templates for the temple pages, so hopefully they will be easier to manage. I agree that many articles need work. The Relief Society article, for example needs work. I think everyone focuses on the main articles about Mormonism, but it should be comprehensive. In fact, I think the big articles should be synopsis sections of other more specific articles. Bytebear 03:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

dude - I love the maps - they rule! great job ! --Trödel 13:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, well find me blank maps of Mexico, Asia, Canada and South America, California and Utah! I am working on Australia. Is there a cartography project on Wikipedia, because we need it. Bytebear 17:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the information in the software section you added is pointless. reading the top summary paragraph from the linked articles is enough. it's just pointless to add a bunch of information that doesn't need to be there. it's clutter. ColdFusion650 17:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Each article should have enough informaton to tell the reader enough about the subject for understanding. Telling them that L stands for Linux means nothing to someone who doesnt know what Linux is. So you need a section to summarize Linux, and then a link for further information. Otherwise, the article should not exist at all. Having a section on Linux is much more important than an arbitrary list of acronymns describing obscure web configurations. Bytebear 19:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They would know that Linux is an operating system. It just seems like you want to add information just for the sake of making a major contribution to an article, not because it's needed. A link is all that's needed. Until it gets removed for good, I'm trimming out the most excess parts. ColdFusion650 16:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How many encycolpedias or articles on here do you know that don't explain what it is they are talking about. I suppose we could have it just be one line, that says Linux, Apache, MySQL, PHP and leave it at that. Don't assume the reader knows what you are talking about just because you are familiar with the subject. I think your edits are appropriate though, but a bullet list is just not an article. Bytebear 21:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Byte, could you look at the above article. In reading it I have found that it is basically the work of one editor that says he is a Mormon and a chaos magician. I am not too concerned about his personal interests, but I am concerned when he takes those interests and says that they are a significant interest within Mormonism. I would also encourage you to vote on the deletion vote. Thanks for your assistance. Storm Rider ^(talk) 23:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the Template, Columbus, OH and St. Louis are way out of place. (Columbus is in Missouri, St. Louis in Arkansas.) Naraht 09:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. I did all of the dots in a couple days, so wasn't worried too much about total accuracy. If you would like to edit them, you can check out the editing Java program that I used, and just update the data. I don't have time to fix them right now, but if you have further questions, I will be happy to tell you more on how I made the maps. Bytebear 19:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you left an extensive summary for your recent edit to Barbra Streisand and you took it from an article. The page is severely lacking references and it might be wise to mention this remark as a reference/note by adding:

<ref>name magazine, date / page, "Her Tony was a special "Star of the Decade" award. However, Streisand's Tony was honorary rather than one of the regular awards, so [it] is sometimes not counted"</ref>

Thanks for keeping an eye out on her page. It is quiet again, but there was some persistent vandalism on her page and nobody was watching her page. KittenKlub 08:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

love the new LA temple image --Trödel

Thanks. It is a huge structure. There are more on the Los Angeles California Temple page. Bytebear 01:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a contributor to the different lists of temples, I was wondering if you could give some feedback concerning the addition several columns to the Comparison of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints page. thx

Also - I have created this temp page to list the differences in the parameters we are using - I think that we should try to use the same name for the same thing if we can. I am ok with your standard of dedication (instead of dedication_date). We also have discrepencies in how the parameters are passed. I require the person to put in the [ [, you don't and you do the image in a way that requires the "_" underscore character - See [User talk:Trödel/Snippets]] for a quick list of things I found. I am going to use hectares for the metric measurement of site size - rather than sq meters because it fits better in the column format. 1 hectare = 10,000 m2 or about 2.5 acres --Trödel 22:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. This goes well with a project I have been working on. Take a look at Temple architecture (Latter-day Saints). I am still fleshing out the details, and have done a lot of cut-and-paste, which needs to be reworded. I also have some questions on specific styles of later temples. I see "Remote area 1", "Remote area 2" and "Remote area 3", but cannot find any reference to them other than Wikipedia. I would love to group each temple by architectural style. If you can help in any way there, I would appreciate it.

Now to your questions. I did notice that the template has a few discrepancies. I think the images should use the "Image:xxx" format which may get rid of your underscore issue. I also have seen other templates that allow you to put in feet and it generates the meters automatically. I think we can do the same thing with acres or even Hectares (never heard that one, but makes sense). I am not married to the idea of dedication vs dedication_date. I think whichever conveys the correct message to the editor. I have done some editing on rollercoasters, and their template is really convoluted, so anything we can do to fix, I say we do. The only issue is that when you make a change, you have to change 150+ pages. Since there aren't many pages using the temple template, I am ok with changes, but in the future, we should make sure that name changes are backward compatable, (i.e. keep the old name as a depricated value). Bytebear 23:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great comments - I was thinking we could use the comparison page as a kind of checklist - when adding the {{Infobox LDS Temple}} to the individual page - put the data also in the comparison list - so we know where we are.

I totally agree re getting the discrepencies worked out now - if you want to see a real mess check out {{cite book}} or {{cite web}} and their kin where there is all kinds of extra coding to make them backwards compatible with depreciated parameters.

If we can get them all worked out now when there is only 5 that have the Infobox that would be great - plus I can do quick S&R on the list pages to get them matching (I have a text editor that does S&R with regular expressions (from Funduc) so it won't be too hard as long as they are all on the same page.

I'll put a list of issues on the page I referenced above and then what it looks like we have agreed on. feel free to wiki edit away.

Finally, what do you think about including extra data in the different lists - I see pros and cons - pro - just copy and past the infobox data to the different lists without modfiying them would be easy - just change the template name. con - makes the page have a lot of lines that aren't needed and may confuse people who come later and edit. ... --Trödel 23:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think extra data is fine for the list template, even if it isn't displayed. If we change our minds later, it will be easier to handle. We may even want to see about doing some kind of include of the data from the temple page. Something like this { { Template talk: { { TEMPLEPAGENAME } } /Data } }. Then each page including the temple page itself just includes the same data. I think it's something worth experimenting with. Bytebear 23:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have thought about that before (and include a little {edit} link to edit the data from any of the uses (temple page, or the 3 list pages). A couple things it would have to be stored outside the article space - ie it can't be TEMPLEPAGENAME/data but it could be Talk:TEMPLEPAGENAME/data or Template:Infobox LDS Temple/TEMPLEPAGENAME or something like that. I think the general use of this kind of stuff is limited but that the template space has been used for it rather than talk space. We should ask COGDEN as he has made subpages in the template page (and he is the one that fixed my early mistake of putting an information page in the article space). I'll review your edits later tonight and see if I can help. --Trödel 23:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am ok with edit links to the data, as it does get confusing where the data actually lives. I have found that if you create a template with a heading, the Edit link goes to the template which is pretty cool. I did some experiments (which I got chastized for - see below), and they didn't work, so I am up for suggestions. I like the idea of having one set of data that several templates can incorporate. I just don't know how to do that technically. Bytebear 23:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sounds good - best to experimet with {{X2}} or other sandboxes before creating new pages - I'll go delete the page you created in the template space unless you object. --Trödel 23:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete away. Hopefully we can find the right technical solution (or live with mutliple versions of data). Bytebear 23:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me what purpose you plan on for this template? Would it be used on multiple pages? User:Zoe|(talk) 23:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was an experiment. It didn't work. Feel free to delete. My bad. Bytebear 23:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was attempting to use data in several templates, so the data wouldn't be duplicated. Is there a way to do that? Bytebear 23:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the thing is that it looks to me like what you were trying to do is to create a template to be used for one article, that's not what Templates are for. You should create an infobox in the article then reproduce that in other articles. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There already are two templates using the same data. One is for an infobox, and the other for a tabulated list. In fact there are several tabulated lists listing different aspects of each building. I was hoping to define the infobox in one place, the list in another, and have a third template that just contained the data that could be shared amongst the two templates. Bytebear 00:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, User talk:Ligulem#Solution? was able to provide me with a potential solution --Trödel 17:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a viable solution. Test it out, and let's decide on a naming convention and standard. Bytebear 17:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That does look like it will work (and that is very cool), but it's sad that it's such a hack. There should be a more generic way to configure a data source. The Comparative list, the regular list, the geographic list and the individual article InfoBoxes should all come from a single source of data. - Bhludzin 20:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found this on another template:

{{!}} {{{height}}} ft ({{#expr: {{{height}}} * 0.3048 round 1 }} m) }}

I think we should use the same logic to convert feet to meters, so we can avoid two values. Other conversions should be done for acres, etc. Bytebear 22:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up on this article. I agree with your assesment and think the re-direct is appropriate. Vic sinclair 03:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		Great work on Temple Architecture (Latter-day Saints) and the geograhic images. Keep it up! As I know the work can sometimes be thankless, I just wanted to say, "Thank you!" --Trödel 17:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, my name is Sean Wolfington and i am new to Wikipedia. When i found that i had a page on the site i added truthful facts from my bio with out the intent of creating a "vanity" article. I did add content to other people's articles that linked to a film we made and now i know that is not allowed - i am sorry. I just read the "spamming" link you added to my page and now i realize that what i did was not right.

This excerpt explains what happened to me: "Some people spam Wikipedia without meaning to. That is, they do things which Wikipedians consider to be spamming, without realizing that their actions are not in line with building an encyclopedia. A new editor who owns a business may see that there are articles about other businesses on Wikipedia, and conclude that it would be appropriate to create his own such article. A Web site operator may see many places in Wikipedia where his or her site would be relevant, and quickly add several dozen links to it."

If you can i would appreciate your advise on what to do to avoid creating problems in the future. Thank You. Sean.

PS: I noticed that you write alot about LDS . We are screening our film, "Bella", to LDS leaders in Salt Lake City including Larry H Miller. I know this not relevant to my article but i want you to know that the film is legit and the reviews are real. The movie is beautiful and we hope it makes a positive impact on the world. I hope you get a chance to see it when it comes out.

I wouldn't call Larry H. Miller a church leader, but that's another issue. I think if you want your article to stand, you need to make it less about the movie and more about yourself. The movie should stand on its own as it's own article. Your article should stand on its own as well. But thats the catch 22. You should not be self promoting. If you are prominant enough to warrant an article, someone else will make it (someone other than your mother, or other close friend or relative). We will leave it up to comittee and let the admins decide. Bytebear 21:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not create the article, nor did my mother, close freind or relative. As i mentioned above... after i found the article written about me i added the information about the film. I did not realize that it was not allowed to add that information. I will remove it. Thanks for responding. Have a nice holiday. Sean.

No worries. It's not that it's not allowed. It just will be looked at as suspect (as yours was). I am sure as you progress in your career you will have more notable things to list. Cheers. Bytebear 23:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have been working on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement/Temples and have implemented the single data location for the Salt Lake Temple (data) and the Los Angeles California Temple (data). These both use an updated Infobox - see {{Infobox LDS Temple}}, which implements the parameter naming standards as described in the WikiProject page. I plan to implement on the first 10 temples, but thought you might have some feedback on the style. I will be creating the list templates, hopefully, over the weekend and implementing them as well for the first 10 templates.

Also please let me know if the instructions are too technical. TIA --Trödel 04:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was disappointed to learn recently that you are taking credit for creating the floor plans of the Nauvoo Temple that I created some six years ago for my webpage on the Nauvoo Temple. Here is the link to the menu page of the original drawings on my Nauvoo Temple site for comparison. Clearly, you have simply copied my drawings, made a few minor changes, and then claimed them as your own, even posting them on the Wikipedia article Nauvoo Temple as the copyright owner. If you would have contacted me I would have gladly given you permission to use them, but now as the actual copyright owner I must ask you to remove them from this page, from the Nauvoo Temple page, as well as from any other Internet page where you may have used them.

Bytebear, on reflection I have decided to request that, rather than asking you to remove your drawings, you simply give me credit as the original source for them: something like, "This drawing is based on an original located at Nauvoo Temple, used with permission of copyright holder" in the copyright statement. I'm not really opposed to you using them, if you simply give me due credit.

I did use your drawings as a reference in the drawings I created. I did however, create the images from scratch. I first used the dimentions of the temple, and you will find that my drawing is to scale where 1 foot = 4 pixels. Other details on locaton of pulpits, stairwells, windows, etc., were rough estimates. I appreciate your work and hope you appreciate mine as well. I will update the notes on each of the images to include a copyright statement, with thanks. Bytebear 03:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Upon rereading the above I find that I was unnecessarily harsh. Forgive me. I would point out that the drawings were based on my research some years ago, and with current knowledge (especially since the reconstruction of the Temple) I would draw some of them differently today, especially the fore attic area and the first floor. A good resource would be Don Colvin's Nauvoo Temple. Still, the drawings (both mine and yours) are good approximations. Best of luck!

Thanks for responding to my note. The issue on the article was partially resolved on Dec 24th but the notice you added to the article still remains on the article about me. The notice you added says "This article or section reads like an advertisement". I removed the reviews of the movie i made that i had added. Would it be possible for you to remove that notice? Thanks for taking the time to read this. Have a nice holiday. Sean.

It does read much better now. Thanks for the changes. Nice picture too. Bytebear 03:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input and thank you for your advice. Have a great new year.Seanwolfington 04:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

no problem - I have set up a page for monitoring the temple pages only as I am ignoring my watchlist for now - see Special:Recentchangeslinked/User_talk:Trödel/Task2. I am planning to use regex to convert all the data at the comparison list to the new format and then just copy and paste it in. --Trödel 14:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bytebear, you've done a great job with your solution to the fighting over the Disney templates — it is signs of a great mediator! ★MESSEDROCKER★ 00:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. :-) 1ne 10:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be levelheaded and grasp the big picture. I am new to the wikipedian community (my reason for joining is here User:OfForByThePeople). You seem to be doing an excellent job at operating in a system dominated by partisan extremists representing various ideologies. Would you please take a look at my reasoning here Talk:Fox_News_Channel#Intro. I made a total of 3 entries. Thanks for looking out! (OfForByThePeople 04:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. The main goal of Wikipedia is to make an encyclopedia. I tend to read things as if I know nothing of the topic. Usually this works when a sentence stands out as strange or POV. I do agree that the statement about the leanings of Fox News do not belong in the intro, but only because I think intros shouldn't have opinions, but facts. That is the only opinion. It should, however, be stated in the article. Bytebear 04:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your timely response. When people word things in a suggestive manner for one article, and then are unwilling to support using the same suggestive manner for the articles of opposition is wrong. Subconsious manipulation is just plain wrong. This is a very big flaw with Wikipedia which is being ignored. Feelings do not make facts. Thank you for looking out! (OfForByThePeople 05:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Some editors are better than others. Being objective is better than subjective, because we all have our opinions. The best approace is to require references. Then they cannot argue their POV, but only argue the references. Bytebear 05:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you didn't feel the love on Talk:Fox News Channel, so I just wanted to extend a welcome to our little corner of Wikihell. The only article I've found more contentious is George W. Bush, for obvious reasons, but it's always interesting. Thanks for your opinion on the situation. I have responded on the talk page. AuburnPilot^talk 05:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I wouldn't have taken notice, but I was invited in. There are plenty of controveries to go around, religion and politics being the top of the list. I am not for censorship, but I think there is a time and place for everything, which is how I approach this particular issue. Bytebear 05:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at my revision to the introduction of the article. I believe we call all agree that this is fair. Thanks for looking out. (OfForByThePeople 06:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

The various lists and maps you have made for the temples look nice and seem to have required a lot of work, congratulations on that. I do have one concern however with the methodology of wholesale adding an interactive map and a regional list to each individual temple page. While I can understand some benefit in having a map indicating the location of a temple on a map for each page, having the large map with links along with an entire list of links to other regional temples in each page seems to be a little unwieldy at best, as the maps are quite large and the lists can take up a lot of space. They seem well suited to the "List of Temples" articles, but on each page seem a bit cumbersome.

I am hesitant about running through all the articles and deleting them in spite of my opinion without asking you first (as it was your work and effort to include them in each article), as well I wish there were some way of getting some consensus on the subject without spamming the talk page of each article. Any ideas?

Thank you again for the creation of the maps, though, it's a job well done. Arkyan 09:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made the maps initially for the geographic list of temples, but I think they are helpful on the individual pages as well. For one, they break the temples into chunks so you don't have to deal with 120+ pages all at once. I made heavy use of templates on the temple pages, and that makes it much easier to maintain. I am all for designing a map that is smaller and cleaner, but I don't have the artistic talent to take on the task. I would not delete them though. They are a source of good information. My vote would be to update them. Bytebear 18:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Temple of Peril Backards.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 05:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:The cat and the canary.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 01:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you might want to re-craft your joke about surrendering to irrationality. Someone might get the impression that you mean it. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 01:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry you think I am irrational, which is the only conclusion I can come to. I have not been discussion a specific change, but an overall tone, which I think is more important. Bytebear 01:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

? There are other conclusions. When I complain that you make complexity look like a blob that eats simplicity and destroys meaning, leaving no one sure of what we're talking about, it's not a good idea to say "surrender to it". That's all I'm saying. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 01:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you do need a break. You obviously do not understand my position. Bytebear 01:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that I do understand; but in the hopes that I don't, I need the feeling to wear off. Best regards. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 02:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bytebear: Do you have an email address I could contact you at. I would like to talk to you about your programming skills, which isn't really proper for a wikipedia talk page. Thanks! Phefner 05:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just click on the link in the left side menu that says "E-mail this user". Bytebear 06:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I just found that and sent it to you. Phefner 06:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, I promised in my edit summary that I would explain on the template talk page, and in fact I have already done so. Give me 5 minutes to collect my thought and write them up! AnonMoos 07:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

no problem. I am prepared to discuss the issue. I don't want this to become a debate. I just feel that the list of groups that are "Christian" was lacking and a bit POV toward trinitarians and traditionalists. Bytebear 07:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I already explained on Template_talk:Christianity at ":23, 21 February 2007" why there is going to be a certain unavoidable bias towards groups with significant early influence and/or long continuous institutional histories. These groups do not all fall within the traditional "orthodox" mainstream of Christianity -- the groups of "Oriental Orthodoxy" or "Syrian Christianity" are Monophysite, or rather non-Chalcedonian, etc. Meanwhile:

1) Many might find it somewhat grotesque if the "Disciples of Christ" were mentioned on the template, but the Armenian church or the Nestorians (which have far more significance in the overall history of Christianity) were not mentioned on the template (for example).

2) The template needs to be continuously monitored so that it does not get too tall, and there needs to be some discussion and agreement about what is to be deleted before a whole new big section of links is added. AnonMoos 15:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, unavoidable bias is pure POV, and unfortunately, has no place on Wikipedia. The template is not about "traditional Christianity" and if you want to make one that is, go for it. This template is about Christianity and should include all major Christian groups including ones that traditionalists find them "grotesque". finding something grotesque is another example of pure POV. I think if you are concerned about it becoming too tall, drop some of the less important links. Many of the links under "Bible" for example are more about the doctrines of Christianity and not about the Bible specifically. For example, how do the 10 commandments specifically fit in with Christianity. They are much more broad than that. It seems to me the excuses that it is too tall is just to cover up a POV. Bytebear 17:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, you're completely misunderstanding what I'm saying. I didn't remotely say anything resmbling an assertion that "non-orthodox" beliefs of Restorationist groups are grotesque. What I observed is that, though I'm sure many individual members of the Disciples of Christ are ernestly pious individuals who strive to do right, it would be ludicrous to claim that, collectively as a group, the Disciples of Christ have remotely the same importance in the overall history of WORLD Christianity over the last 1900+ years that say Nestorians or Coptic Christians have had. Furthermore, it might be said that taking a global view of the history of world Christianity over two thousand years is much less "POV" than focusing on the English-speaking world of the last 200 years (as you seem to do). AnonMoos 17:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Neither Nestorian nor Coptic Christianity is "orthodox" in the traditional Catholic / Eastern Orthodox / conservative Protestant sense. AnonMoos 17:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, you aren't getting it. The length of the infobox is reasonable. It is considerably shorter than the Judaism infobox which has been cited as a good quality infobox. Second, you really need to go to adherents.com and look up some statistics. LDS and JWs for example are world religions and just as important as any other religious group. And many protestant movements also started only a few hundred years ago. Before you go judging these "fringe" movements, I would go through the website I mentioned and see what the true demographics on Christianity are. Do not follow your pastor, follow the facts. Wikipedia is about facts. Bytebear 19:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a "pastor" -- you probably envision me as someone completely different than I actually am. However, in the GLOBAL perspective of Christian WORLD history of the last TWO-THOUSAND years (as opposed to the English-speaking Christianity of the last 200 years), it's pretty indisputable that Nestorians and Coptic-Ethiopian Christians (among some other groups that could be named) are more historically important/influential than the Disciples of Christ (among other groups which you keep attempting to add to the template) -- why do you refuse to acknowledge this very basic and not very controversial point? AnonMoos 21:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because the plain and simple truth is that it is extremely POV to exclude at least two of the 10 largest Christian religions, specifically LDS and Jehovah's Witnesses. There is rumor that the LDS Church is the second richest church next to the Catholics. How can you say they are not significant? Also, as far as the world stage, did you even look at the data on Adherents.com? Here is a sample (all data taken from Adherents.com):

Religious Body Number of Adherents Catholic Church** 1,100,000,000 Sunni Islam* 1,000,000,000 Eastern Orthodox Church* 225,000,000 Jinja Honcho* 83,000,000 Anglican Communion* 77,000,000 Assemblies of God* 50,000,000 Ethiopian Orthodox Church 35,000,000 Evangelische Kirche in Deutschland (EKD)* 27,400,000 Iglesia ni Cristo (based in the Philippines) 27,000,000 Sikhism 23,000,000 Juche (North Korea) 19,000,000 Seventh-day Adventist Church 16,811,519 Southern Baptist Convention* 16,000,000 Jehovah's Witnesses** 15,597,746 Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 12,275,822 United Methodist Church* 11,708,887 Soka Gakkai 11,000,000 New Apostolic Church 10,260,000 Ahmadiyya * 10,000,000 Veerashaivas (Lingayats) 10,000,000 Coptic Orthodox 10,000,000 Sathya Sai Baba 10,000,000 Church of Uganda 8,000,000 Choge Buddhism 8,000,000 Church of Sweden 7,143,292 Church of God in Christ 6,500,000 Kimbanguist Church 6,500,000 Bahai World Faith 6,000,000 Universal Church of the Kingdom of God (Igreja Universal do Reino de Deus) 6,000,000 Evangelical Lutheran Church in America 5,500,000

Top 10 Largest Highly International Religious Bodies These are religious bodies in which at least 30% of their world membership live outside the "core country" (country with the largest number of members). Religious Body Number of Adherents Catholic Church 1,100,000,000 Sunni Islam 875,000,000 Eastern Orthodox Church 225,000,000 Anglican Communion* 77,000,000 Assemblies of God 50,000,000 Seventh-day Adventists 16,811,519 Jehovah's Witnesses 15,597,746 Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 12,275,822 New Apostolic Church 10,260,000 Ahmadiyya 10,000,000 Bahai World Faith 6,000,000

Greatest Historical Religious Figures (Steven A. DeVore and Richard Linford, InteliQuest Learning Systems; URL: http://www.4iq.com/people1.htm#list) (Listed chronologically)

   * Abraham    * Moses    * Lao-tzu    * Buddha    * Confucius    * Jesus Christ    * Apostle Paul    * Saint Augustine    * Muhammad    * Thomas Aquinas    * Martin Luther    * John Calvin    * Joseph Smith    * Gandhi  

Henry and Dana Thomas Great Religious Leaders List Jesus Christianity Moses Jewish prophet Isaiah Jewish prophet Zoroaster founder of Zoroastrianism Buddha founder of Buddhism Confucius founder of Confucianism John the Baptist prophet and contemporary of Jesus Christ St. Paul Christianity Mohammed Prophet of Islam St. Francis of Assisi early Christian theologian John Huss Bohemian Christian reformer; founder of Czech Hussites Martin Luther primary founder of Protestantism Loyola theologian and founder of Jesuits Calvin founder of Calvinist branch of Protestantism George Fox founder of Quakers John Wesley founder of Methodist movement Swedenborg founder of Swedenborgianism Brigham Young 2nd prophet of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Mary Baker Eddy founder of Christian Science Gandhi Hindu reformer and Indian political leader; mother was a Jain

Greg Bear's List of History's Major Prophets

   *  Zarathustra (Zoroaster)    * Jesus    * Mohammed    * Shabbetai Tzevi    * Al Mahdi    * Joseph Smith    * Brigham Young 

Time Magazine's Person of the Century Poll Elvis Presley 624,574 Yitzhak Rabin 599,557 Adolf Hitler 516,408 Billy Graham 470,477 Albert Einstein 443,630 Martin Luther King Jr. 381,462 Pope John Paul II 372,015 Gordon B. Hinckley* 255,026 Mohandas Gandhi 163,940 Ronald Reagan 81,262

• Hinckley is president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Famous Contemporary Religious Leaders

• Pope Benedict XVI - Catholic Church. Webpage.
• Dalai Lama - Tibetan Buddhism. Official site.
• Billy Graham - Protestant. Billy Graham Center Archives
• Jerry Falwell - Evangelical. Article in Christianity Today; official site; opposing views.
• Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew - Eastern Orthodox Church. An official biography.
• President Gordon B. Hinckley - Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Intro by Mike Wallace.
• Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams - Anglican. Homepage.
• Imam W. Deen Mohammed - Muslim American Society. Official site.
• Louis Farrakhan - Nation of Islam. Biography at official site.
• Master Li Hongzhi - Falun Dafa. Official site.

Special "Millennium Month" Christmas Eve and New Years Eve Guests On the Larry King Show (CNN), December 1999

• Bishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa
• Dalai Lama, leader of Tibetan Buddhism
• Rev. Billy Graham, world-famous evangelist
• Pres. Gordon B. Hinckley of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
• Rev. Schuller of the Crystal Cathedral and the television program "Hour of Power"

GO Network's "Famous Religious Leaders and Figures" Leaders listed on the GO Network web portal's Religious Leaders and Figures directory page (as of 21 March 2000; URL: http://www.go.com/WebDir/People/Famous_people/Religious_leaders_and_figures):

   * Dalai Lama    * Louis Farrakhan    * Pope John Paul II    * Mary Baker Eddy *    * Billy Graham    * Jerry Falwell    * Mother Teresa *  

The only two lists that don't include Smith, Young, Eddy or Hinkley are polls done by Christian pastors or ministers:

Some Major American Protestant Leaders (Bynum) As listed by Pastor E. L. Bynum, Tabernacle Baptist Church, Lubbock, Texas.

Some Major Christian Leaders and Writers (MisterPoll) List of individuals from the "Christianity Poll," done by Mister Poll (http://www.misterpoll.com/3611932490.html):

Most Ubiquitous Religious Bodies: The religious bodies on this list which are most likely to have a church, mosque, or congregation near you (in most countries in the world) are:

   * Catholic Church    * Sunni Islam    * Baha'i Faith    * Jehovah's Witnesses    * Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints    * Seventh-day Adventists 

Is this enough evidence for you?

Bytebear 02:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly an accumulation of data -- however, not one single part of it addresses the actual question at issue -- namely, why the Disciples of Christ should be considered more important than the Nestorians in the global perspective of Christian world history over the last two thousand years (as opposed to the English-speaking Christianity of the last 200 years). AnonMoos 13:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know enough about Desciples of Christ to make a judgement, and I never said to exclude Nestorians. All I know is Desciples of Christ were mentioned in the Restorationism page, and since the list was of Restorationists, I included them. Bytebear 18:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you had throught things through a little bit beforehand (instead of just mechanically cribbing a list of groups from the Restorationism page, without considering the strength of the individual claims of each separate group to be included on the Christianity template), then we might have all have been spared some of the unpleasant discussions of the past few days. AnonMoos 20:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? I thought one of the key dictates of Wikipedia is to be bold, and I gave ample, well thought out evidence to the strengths of these groups and to my claims. You are also ignoring another edict of Wikipedia: Assume Good Faith. Bytebear 21:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you had "good faith" -- you just didn't think things through, and then did not respond well to other people when they pointed out that you hadn't thought things through. AnonMoos 21:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your temple map of the western United States places the Billings Montana Temple in Thermopolis Wyoming. The worldwide map also places it there. Just thought you'd like to know to correct the error. Great maps, by the way. Thanks for your work! Novel-Technology 13:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have corrected the Template map of the Western US for you, to have Billings in Billings(or at least pretty close). The World LDS Temples graphic is still incorrect. Novel-Technology 03:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I just haven't had time to edit the maps myself. I will upload a new version of the map. I am not surprised I got some wrong. I did them all in one day. but I did use the LDS official temple maps for reference, so maybe they are wrong too? Bytebear 03:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Mickey_50_Ears.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. BigrTex 20:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad to see that you have joined the discussion on Template:Latter Day Saint movement. Please try to be civil in your comments. --NThurston 15:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please respond back to my e-mail...it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for looking out! OfForByThePeople 17:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, not trying to be a bother, but would you please respond to the e-mail I have sent you. I see you as being one of the few truly knowledgeable and fair editors, which is why I have turned to you. Thank you for looking out! OfForByThePeople 16:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please respond on my talk page. OfForByThePeople

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Temple_of_Peril_Backards_French.gif. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 16:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged Image:States_of_grace.jpg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. BigrTex 18:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged Image:Grad_nite_73.JPG as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. BigrTex 18:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The pentagram is a rather minor symbol in the global history of Christianity (and is usually called a "pentalpha" in that context), and your edits led to discussion of detailed tangential issues of occultism etc. which have no real place in such a broad general overview article. That material could have a place on Wikipedia, but not in the Christian Symbolism article... AnonMoos 22:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and make edits, but it was very prominant at some point in Christian history and should be included in the article. I just grabbed the Christian section from the Pentagram artivle. Seemed appropriate to me. Bytebear 23:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was not "very prominant[sic] at some point in Christian history" -- under the name of the Pentalpha, it was basically an abstract conceptual toy of a few medieval intellectuals. Later, beginning in the Renaissance, it received greater prominence, but was also then used in a much less purely religious way.

If it really were a prominent Christian symbol, then it would have been used as such, and many examples of it would be found in old Church ornamentation and religious art -- but they don't seem to be. I'm the main author of an article (Shield of the Trinity) about a Christian symbol which I freely admit is a somewhat minor one (not "prominant"), and yet I have many more references and links to its use in traditional church decoration and religious art than is contained in the Pentagram article -- and I doubt that's an accident. AnonMoos 08:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

from your home page, and your prominance on the Shield of the Trinity, which I have never heard of, it is clear to me that you have an agenda. Go right ahead taking ownership of your pet pages, but remember that Wikipedia is not owned by you or me, but is a collaborative effort, and if I want to improve an article or change the direction which you do not like, tough beans. It's not yours to own. The Cross, and the Crucifix has much more prominance than the Shield of which you are so fond of, and as such, the article has undue weight. It needs to be balanced, and you are clearly not the man for the job. Bytebear 19:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, you're displaying the same uncooperative behavior which so conspicuously previously turned a minor editing dispute on "Template:Christianity" into an pointless unnecessary semi-major foofaraw broo-ha-ha (as seen directly above on this page). Please don't place "POV vandalism" accusations in the edit summaries when you're already aware that it isn't any such thing. The material on Christian uses of the "pentalpha" is welcome on the Pentagram article, but it has no place in the Christian symbolism article, unless you can make some argument for its broad relevance of the whole topic of Christian symbolism over the global history of Christianity -- something which you don't seem to have even attempted to do, so far... AnonMoos

You called my edit nonsesnse, I call you bias and pushing a POV, although I an trying very hard to assume good faith. You seem to be doing the opposite. If the Pentagram is not a part of Christian symbolism, then why does the former have a section on the latter. Do you have evidence that this is nonsense? Because I see a lot of references to it being a fact. Do not revert again, and stop whining. It was a significant part of Christian history, and I cannot see why you do not want the uninformed reader to know about it's history, other than your own bias against the symbol, which is stupid because only the uninformed think it is satanic. I can only assume this is your motivation for removing pertinant information, and lambasting me for doing nothing than puting pertinant information about Christian symbols on the page about Christian symbols. Bytebear 23:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, the material as it is found in the Pentagram article may have a very valid and helpful role within the Pentagram article, but given the current scope and purpose of the "Christian symbolism" article, it's nonsense to include it in the "Christian symbolism" article.

As the article has been developed over the course of several years, it is NOT a compendium of the details of the meaning of a whole long list of Christian symbols. You might want it to be that, but it has not been that, and you trying to unilaterally alter the basic nature and focus of the article without even discussing anything on the talk page first was not a particularly constructive maneuver, and it did not create a positive foundation for future cooperative collaboration. (Nor did putting an irrelevant Satanism symbol on a Christian symbolism page, as you did in your initial edits.)

To try to spell things out in words of one syllable or less, there are a number of valid articles in the category Category:Christian symbols, but that doesn't mean that all the text in each and every one of those articles should be moved into article Christian symbolism. The Christian symbolism article has been reserved for general discussions which throw light on the overall nature of the use of symbols by Christians. The Pentagram is a much less "prominant" Christian symbol than you seem to believe, but even if this were less true, why should there be a section on the Pentagram in article Christian symbolism when there's no section on the Cross in and of itself -- which is indisputably the most prominent symbol of all? AnonMoos 08:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what your dispute is about nor on which side of it I am, but I do notice it's got a bit too heated at points. Just hold your right arm over your left and say to yourself "Calm, calm, calm" (works for me). Sam Blacketer 00:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to do when you get yelled out on your own talk page. and for what? Copying from one article to another specifically related material? Crazy. Bytebear 00:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For deliberately and intentionally using inflammatory edit summaries, and mischaracterizing as "vandalism"[sic] something which you know very well is not "vandalism"[sic], apparently for the sole and exclusive purpose of causing aggravations and stirring up trouble. AnonMoos 07:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

paersonal attacks, like you are doing now are not acceptable on Wikipedia. Not everyone spell checks, and when you type 120 words a minute, it's easy to miss a letter or two. Get over it. Bytebear 19:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have placed some questions on the talk page of this template you created. Can you please join me for a discussion there? Thanks in advance. --Robbie Giles 23:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are never going to come to any sastifactory conclusion by arguing the merit of undue weight across articles, not only that but you may even run into situations where the same editor will support the inclusion of some criticism on one article, and adamently reject the criticism on another article even when the context is exactly the same. They will even justify their actions by stating that you can't use another article's content for justification. This is not to say I don't agree with you, because I do. There is a far amount of hypocrisy with some editors on WP when it comes to controversal articles. I would rather emplore that you recognize that the undue weight is specific within the article itself under "positions of minority viewpoints" (this is NOT viewpoints of editors, but viewpoints of sources and references), of which in this case there are almost none. That and the self-referential nature of this issue should be enough for it to either be removed completely or greately reduced (as I have done a couple of times). Arzel 19:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you say, there are many reasons for exclusion of this content. Hypocracy is rampant, and I am actually considering working on Wikiepdia policy and guidelines so this kind of blatant POV cannot be justified by hiding under the shield of WP:NPA. We really need to come to a consensus. I have yet to hear one single compelling argument for the inclusion of this material. I think we need to start asking for justification. Thanks for the support. Bytebear 19:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Might be time for an RfC. Some editors clearly are using a personal bias and one continues to break the spirit of notability. Arzel 14:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. we don't have enough people looking at this issues. We also need to look at how other articles have handled the situation. Bytebear 16:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the rename of "Doctor" Philastus Hurlbut's page, the man's given name actually was "Doctor," which has always caused confusion (this isn't mentioned in the stub article, but it is footnoted in the Mormonism Unvailed article...not yet referenced to a source). Hurlbut wasn't really a doctor at all. There are references to support this, but I'll have to look them up. However, the title of the article will obviously continue to cause confusion if we move it back to "Doctor Philastus Hurlbut." Perhaps we should move it to "D. Philastus Hurlbut?" Bochica 14:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that is just weird. But it should be noted in the TALK page at least, so this doesn't happen again. Or you could put a hidden comment in the first paragraph of the article. Bytebear 22:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Byte, I appreciate your work on the Christianity article. I would encourage you to tread light with User:AJA; he is a good fellow, but he is extremely prickly when it comes to all things having to do with the LDS church. I my many interactions with him, I have consistently run into problems if the edit has to do even remotely with Mormonism. I have found discussion to be of little help; he has an obvious opinion and he is not interested in "your" (in the collective sense) opinion or position. What has worked best for me is when interaction is required, be direct concise, even blunt, and then move on. Eventually other editors will jump in an give an opinion and lead to a solution. Cheers. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 22:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged Image:77245_April2006Ensign_tn.jpg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. ~ Wikihermit 01:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Peterpanaudiobookcover.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 05:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: our recent back-and-forths, I hope nothing I've said has offended you and I apologize if it has. I can get overly rhetorical sometimes and it may come across as a personal attack, but I do not intend that. I do understand your position more fully now and I'm glad you've provided some suggestions for discussion. Though I support the current (Mormon) / (Latter Day Saints) methodology, I will be OK with whatever the consensus is to your proposals on the MOS page. I'll back off there and let others comment. :) Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 03:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No offense taken. I could read enough between the lines, and I understand the desire to use "Mormon". It is actually more bluntly clear to the reader, but it is inaccurate in the detail. the whole "Latter-day Saint" vs. "Latter Day Saint" thing is goofy, but I do like "LDS Church" vs. "Latter Day Saint movement", and I would actually prefer "movement" be part of the naming convention, but anything dealing with the name of the church tends to get very long and convoluted. "Mormon" is short and simple. But it just doesn't work, unfortunately. Thanks for hanging in with me. Bytebear 03:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Gateway One, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia per CSD g11.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 17:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the Soarin' Over California article, the Redwood Creek leads to a disambig page Redwood Creek. Would you please fix the Redwood Creek link in the Soarin' Over California to the correct Redwood Creek? Thanks. -- Jreferee t/c 00:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

You recently commented on this image in IfD which I put up for deletion review because it was deleted after a its first "delete" vote: the vote of the administrator who deleted it. I felt consensus took a back seat to that administrator's personal bias. You might or might not agree, in any case take a look. Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_October_30#Image:Manti-1999.jpg Thanks Reswobslc 13:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry for tagging the revert of your edit as vandalism, I hit the wrong rollback link. However, please see the talk page and join in the discussion concerning the removal of the links rather than simply reverting as they were removed per WP:EL guidelines. -- Collectonian (talk) 17:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your position on feeling the links are inappropriate, but I have had this particular page on my watchlist for a long time, and past discussions have concluded that links to free versions of the game are appropriate, which is why I have reverted your changes. I am ok with reopening the discussion, but my position is in agreement with that assesment. Bytebear (talk) 06:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There never has been. The question is, "is there any reason not to include the image in the article?" The answer is, "no". It's that simple. Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it were that simple, I would drop the issue, but the history of that particular image says otherwise. Bytebear 18:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Byte. I looked on your user page after I replied on the Christianity talk page and I wanted to ask you something. Are you Mormon, or just very interested in the Mormon church? I'm just curious cause I thought that Mormons did actually believe in three separate Gods, as the other user charged against all Christians. I just wanted to clear up my understanding of that. Thanks! Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Carl, nice to meet you. I looked on your talk page as well, and congratulations on your baptism in the Catholic faith. My partner was raised Catholic, and in fact, his brother was just baptised (along with his wife) Catholic this year. It's a long story as to why they were raised in different faiths. I was raised a Latter-day Saint, and hold an affinity to them, but I am not practicing. I do particularly love the symbolic architecture of LDS temples (as you probably guessed). I do know their doctrines well, but have a foot in other theologies here and there.

That said, to answer your question, Mormons consider themselves Monotheistic. Although they define God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost as three separate beings, they are still one God. Mormons call this union the Godhead, rather than trinity, although historically, trinity has been used in rare cases. Honestly, the theology is not that different than the trinity in theory, but semantics get in the way. That and the fact that Mormonism explicitely define God the Father and the Son as existing in a phyiscial manifestation. But when pressed, most Christians would agree that Jesus was physically resurrected and has a body of flesh and bone. So when I read the comment on the Christianity talk page about monotheism, I did think of Mormonism, and how the beliefs are often misunderstood, and whether it is called the Trinity or the Godhead, it still is monotheism. It is also why I htink an article like Monotheism in Christianity would be interesting, because there are various interpretations of what that means. Bytebear 21:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the congratulations, and it is nice to meet you too. Thank you for helping to clear that up for me. And I have never created an article that was more than a stub, but after next Thursday, when my finals are done, I'd be willing to try n write up some stuff and maybe we can work on it,expand it into a good-sized article together. Regards. Carl.bunderson (talk) 22:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on Plural marriage. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from editing. - Alison ^❤ 06:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok - a few points here, too. You are revert-warring on the above article. One more revert on that page and your account gets blocked for a period of time. What you're doing now is disruptive and needs to stop. I appreciate your reporting this to WP:RPP but this is largely a content dispute here. The other editor will receive a similar warning. Stop now - Alison ^❤ 06:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have already requested that the article be locked. I an considering the other editor's actions vandalism. Please review his edits, and you will see extreme POV edits that require reversions. Bytebear (talk) 06:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the admin responding to your protect request. You both need to back off right now. The other guy is being a lot sneakier with his edit summaries but you both are warring here - Alison ^❤ 06:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:77245 April2006Ensign tn.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 21:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your last comment in the RfC on the Bill O'Reilly article. However, it appears that our position is not the policy of the project. I think there is an assumption that only significant notable events would be written into articles, so a policy stating that was never established. I'd be willing to assist in starting a process to see if WP:NOTE can be expanded to cover article content as well. But in the meantime, we really don't have a leg to stand on to keep additions like this out of the article. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 22:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately this is a topic that has a lot of POV, and as such, every fact entered into the article should be questioned as to why it is in the article. If no valid reason can be made then it should fail in several fronts: WP:NOT, WP:NOTE and WP:BLP. Bytebear (talk) 22:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bytebear,

I reworked/reinserted the sentence that you removed at Holy of Holies (LDS Church). While a Holy of Holies at the Manti and SL Temples can be verified, talk of a Holy of Holies at other locations (such as DC) is apocryphal at best. I'd love for you to prove me wrong with something solid.

All the best, --Rojerts (talk) 23:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you have a verifiable source that even says a second Holy of Hoies may exist, there is no room for it on Wikipedia. I will review your changes, but I will problay add a "citation needed" tag to the statement. Bytebear (talk) 23:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please reply on my talk page. I re-reverted, comment clearly not made with the intention to improve the article. Removal on the basis of wp:talk. Thanks -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 00:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to start a revert war over a moronic comment on a talk page, so i'll defer to you on this one. But, I think that doing so just encourages such behaviour in the future, I disagree with you removing comments on talk pages for the reasons in wp:talk. Have a nice day. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 00:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think anybody who kills any animal is evil (PETA included), but that's completely irrelevant, so is this comment. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 00:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine either way on this. I'd rather see discussion, even if pointless, than an editing war. It probably makes more sense to reply to a comment like this with references explaining Wiki POV/NPOV, than I did, since the talk comment indicates the poster doesn't get it.Bob98133 (talk) 01:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My comment about the Strangites on Talk:Gordon B. Hinckley was meant as a joke, though it may not have come out that way. Ha, ha. My condolences at your church's loss (I assume you are LDS?). Is it quite devastating for church members when the president dies or does everybody pretty much take it in stride? I wasn't into LDS issues as much when the last president died, so I'm not too familiar with the popular reaction. Snocrates 04:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I knew it was a joke, and was just giving you a hard time. I actually thought Luke was the one who over reacted. No worries.

It has been a long time since a prophet has died, and it reminds me of when Spencer W. Kimball died, as I was about 10, and was the only president I knew. This will be an emotional time for the LDS faith. For LDS, it is akin to the Pope dying, without the anticipation and politicing for a successor. The successor will be Thomas S. Monson, and it won't come as a shock to anyone. In fact, if it isn't Monson, it would be the fist time, the senior apostle hasn't been called as president ever. This is certainly a time to shore up the articles relating to presidential succession. Bytebear (talk) 04:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Less POV? Suggesting that "the main reason . . ." as stated is propaganda. I tried to make the edit fair, but reflective of the fact that only Mormons consider themselves to be Christians. That is a fact, not a point of view. I'll repost and let you have a chance to reflect before you change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tapols (talk • contribs) 00:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since I'm not a wiki expert, I didn't quite know how to respond so you'd see this. So, sorry for the duplicate from my page:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Isn't it interesting, Byte, that you can make/support assertions such as "This is primarily due to the fact that adherents to Mormonism claim that the movement is a restoration of the earliest Christian and Judaic doctrines" and yet don't feel the need to support YOUR statements with evidence, except that "we say so." The issue of whether Mormons (you?) claim to be Christian isn't an issue in my edits. The FACT is that Orthodox and Protestant churches DO NOT accept that Mormonism is a "denomination," rather that it is a completely different belief system. Mormons do not accept the Trinity as a core belief. It is exactly that CORE that unites Orthodox and Protestant DENOMINATIONS and precisely why they do NOT accept Mormonism as related.

It's not my POV, it is a fact. Whether or not 52% of "Christians" surveyed think so or not is equivalent to saying "52% of Mormons believe Polygamy is OK and should practice it," and then expecting the LDS leadership to say, "OK, fine. We'll do that then." That's not how it works, and you know it. Nor does asserting that "This is primarily due to the fact that adherents to Mormonism claim that the movement is a restoration of the earliest Christian and Judaic doctrines" accurately describe the FACT that traditional Christian churches -- from the LEADERSHIP OF THEM -- do not accept any relationship, spiritually, with the LDS church.

Before you start just deciding that someone is wrong on FACT, consider your own POV and the propaganda you're offering. I have tried to be fair with my statements to reflect FACT, not spun according to an effort to mainstream something that cannot and will not be mainstreamed because of core disagreement.

I am happy to review the other page as you have suggested, however I am really not interested in debating you on it -- simply trying to have the facts reflected in a public forum. The thing that is really dismaying is that there seems to be an organized effort to "protect" the language on a public page that clearly reflects a bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tapols (talk • contribs) 00:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I am going to respond so that you can understand how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia is about facts. The fact is "adherents to Mormonism claim that the movement is a restoration of the earliest Christian and Judaic doctrines" You retort by saing, "because they say so?" Yes, because they say so. That is what "claim" means.

Second, Orthodoxy is not Christianity. It is a subset of Christianity. As such, adherents of Orthodoxy do not make the rules for who is and who isn't Christian. Neither do evangelicals, baptists, Catholics, Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons, or anyone else.

The Trinity may be the core of Orthodoxy, but not the core of CHristianity, particularly since the term "Trinity" is not in the bible, and was not a part of Christianity until around 400 AD.

If you find a reference that says 52% of Mormons belive polygamny is ok, then go ahead and put it in the appropriate article. But it is not appropriate to say that 52% of Catholics believe Mormons should practice polygamny. It just doesn't matter what the Catholics think. Similarly it doesn't matter what you think about Mormons.

The fact is, I can give you hundreds of references by Mormons that says they are Christians. I can give you hundreds more by non-Mormons that says the same thing. I can find a few very biased anti-Mormon groups who believe Mormonism isn't Christian, but they are a irrelivant to every article except perhaps the Christianity and Mormonism article.

The organized effort, it is established by Wikipedia to avoid bias edits, like yours. It's called a neutral point of view. And before you judge too harsly, know that not everyone who edits pages on Mormonism is a Mormon. Honestly, I think you should invite the missionaries to your home so you can hear about the church first hand. Clearly you have some bigotry to get over. Bytebear (talk) 01:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Template:List LDS Temple California requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{tranclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-WarthogDemon 03:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree with you, you do realize you do realize that your logic falls mostly on deaf ears. The current standard, which seems to repeat itself over and over, is as such. Controversal subject makes some statement that MM finds objectable on some level. MM transcribes the comment and pushes it out into the media hoping that someone else will comment on the issue. Often KO will repeat the issue which then garners additional commentary. Of course since the original comments by MM have already been presented to their biased point of view, the additional commentary is also presented with the same bias, and even when what MM says is refuted by presenting the original comments in their proper context, the issue still remains because it has now reached notability standards that some apply, and MM still gets to present their pov (even if it isn't directly linked to them anymore).

The end result is that MM gets their pov presented either way because of the way this system is gamed, and since organizations like MM use a shotgun approach (publish everything in hopes that something sticks) it is inevitable that something does stick, even if the actual controversal statements are so short lived in main stream media as to be forgotten by most in a short period of time. And what are we left with here? The extremes presented as a neutral view of the person and their actions, and it is all backed up by WP policy, and if you try to use wp policy, you are accused of policy shopping, as I see you have already been accused. The only real solution to this core problem, that I have found, is to present as much information regarding the original comments so that the reader can see the entire context of the senario, unfortunately it usually ends up as a bloated section describing a minor situation which is an extremely minor aspect of the subject being discussed, as I am sure you have seen. Arzel (talk) 04:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a ridiculous situation. They are using MM to validate their soapboxing, which I think is the best argument against their behavior. And you are correct, finding one obscure reference that quotes MM on the issue does not valiate something as notable. Of course, I am accused of being a "secret supporter" of whoever is being attacked, which is not the case. I just think putting up such trivial issues about someone is just silly. Imagine if we had every controversial thing about Abraham Lincoln stated, for example. He certainly had his detractors who were slinging mud harder and further than we see here, and he said some very racist things, by today's standards. Of course, if I bring up this example, I will be told this is not that article, and they are two separate issues. I guess people refuse to see the forest for the trees. Bytebear (talk) 16:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think some people only see "Their" trees in the forrest. My initial reason for editing was to try and remove pointless criticism from several articles from both the left and the right. Removal from the left is relatively easy...removal from the right is like pulling teeth, and I have been accused several times of trying to "scrub" critical information. What they fail to realize is, that by using sources like MM to promote MM agenda within WP, the whole project of WP fails. Instead of a truly neutral presentation you get the biased form from the side that screams the loudest. Just look at the Gibson article. Granted, he says some stupid things, and has some off-base opinions, but just try to turn that into a neutral article. The WP policies of WP:V and WP:RS and notability all but guarentee that it will remain a biased article of undue weight. The solution presented by Gibson haters is to add additional content, unfortunately, good news, or nice news is simply not news. Ironically, WP turns into an extreme version of actual news, which is something those on the far left rail against FNC (sensationalism versus actual news). Welcome to gossipedia. Arzel (talk) 02:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Before the days of Google search, verifiability was much more strict. You had to have a news organization of some reputability report on things. Now even the mainstream media will pick up on useless fluff. I like to use the example of Abraham Lincoln who said some pretty racist things in his time, but in context, they are not really important, and certainly not in the character and history of the man. The same goes for Bill O'Reilly, Mel Gibson, and everyone else. In 100 years, they will not be known for such trivialities. That is unless Wikipedia becomes the basis for historical accuracy. I wonder how long it will take before those racist quotes wind themselves into the Lincoln article. Bytebear (talk) 02:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]