User talk:Storm Rider/Archive 2

Editors ignored...

Enormous has a habit of doing this...I've seen it happen in the past, and I don't know of a way to stop him, really. Best of luck handling it...I would, but have finals. Bo-Lingua 22:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd second that. I've been following his many edits of physics articles over the last week or so, reverting the most egregious changes if no one else does. He never explains or defends his edits, but stuff that was reverted is often re-added a few days latter. Very frustrating. Nonsuch 00:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently just biding my time. I will be reverting his edits because they do not belong in the main article. I will be transferring them to the talk page of the correct respective article and then we can debate the issue from there. Do you think he simply is unaware of the discussion page or just doesn't care to interact? Yes, it is frustrating. We need to learn how to engage him so that he can be a more productive editor. He is obviously possesses a degree of ability, but just narrowly applies it. He could take more time in using proper spelling and grammer, but he is worth trying to get enrolled in all of the processes of WIKI. Storm Rider ^(talk) 04:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck with that. He's been editing wikipedia for at least 10 months as Special:Contributions/67.177.35.2 Nonsuch 04:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like our assumed good faith is misplaced in him. His grammar and punctuation are probably due to the fact that he's Russian (I believe I read that in either his user page or my interactions with him...). Maybe he needs to be referred to admins? Bo-Lingua 14:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did list him on Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts, but I'm uncertain as to what good that will do. For laughs I just looked up his first edit as 67.177.35.2 back in July 2005. It was immediately reverted. He re-added it along with a bunch of additional material that was again reverted as not NPOV. I think I see a pattern here.... Nonsuch 16:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of religions once classed as cults...

Would you consider changing your vote to keep the information if it were merged with List of groups referred to as cults or expanded into a broader topic: "The Transition from Cult to Religion." That might make a very interesting wikipedia article. cairoi 15:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Korihor

Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner. I've been unplugged for a few days and it was a nice break. About Korihor, I'll write on the discussion page. Greenw47 13:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Kolob et cetera

Hi, Storm Rider, thank you for posting to my talk page I am copying here to you my response as it is on my talk page:

I think that you are right on this, and you are well read on the subject. I appreciate learning more through interaction. I also hope that as an LDS you are not offended by what I have written about the LDS. I don't want to push any anti-LDS POV. I have met many LDS people, and I have found them to be fine, decent people. --Drboisclair 19:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would be grateful for you to set me straight on what is accurate about LDS. I like to interact with other well-read persons like yourself. It helps me learn as well. Kindest regards,--Drboisclair 19:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I am intrigued on the manner in which the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator of the Church with the counsel of others in the church write scripture in the Doctrines and Covenants, which I believe is the format that scriptures are continually being written in the LDS. --Drboisclair 19:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Smith, Jr

Would you keep an eye on User Talk:Hoboken, who is insistant that "polygamy" is preferred over "polygyny" in all cases? I believe I reverted him a time or two before he created a user name, at least once as Hoboken a couple of days ago, and now I've reverted Hoboken twice within 24 hours. Visorstuff also reverted him once, as an anon I think. Please see my notes on his talk page, and his response on mine. He just posted again, angry at my ownership of the article. Best....... WBardwin 07:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Young Earth Creationism

Do you happen to know anything about the LDS offocial position on Creationism or YEC or anything like that? A user brought it up on the talk page of YEC, and so far the only discussion seems to revolve around "Enlightened Mormons can have accepted the scientific consensus on evolution", and I don't know anything about the LDS stance on any of this kind of thing. Homestarmy 19:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

Image	Name	Description!
	Civility Barnstar	I award this Barnstar to Storm Rider for remaining civil despite blatant provocation on the Christianity talk page. Sophia 19:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, well done. Your response to Andy was so much more measured than the one I would have posted. Congratulations for keeping cool. Slac speak up! 23:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My signing

Please don't take it upon yourself to change it. I write it like that because I find it the easiest way to tell, there should be indentation differences anyways. I would like to change everyone else's over to my way, but I don't, because that's their signiature, the way they want to sign it.

KV(Talk) 18:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Smith Jr edit

Um, check the edit history. All I did was change a category from "Freemason" to "American Freemason." Its part of an effort to thin out the category on Freemasons into some smaller nation specific articles. youngamerican (talk) 01:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the link, as you can see, that was all that happened in the edit. youngamerican (talk) 01:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I did a little research in comparing the past edits of the article in question, and it was Leon7 that made that edit. Here is that edit comparison. I'm sure he or she would be more than happy to address your question and I hope you are able to resolve the situation to your satisfaction. Cheers. youngamerican (talk) 02:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your question of my edit of the Joseph Smith Jr page to, "and inherit all that the Father has—in simple terms, to become like God."... the old rev reads "to become like god." I assume this is referring to God the father, which means it need to be upper cased. If you want it to stay as a lower case g, then it needs to change to something like, "and inherit all that the Father has—in simple terms, to become gods." I think I prefer the first one. Leon7 08:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Project and template

I wanted to bring you up to date on a little project I'm undergoing. See the discsussion at Trodel's page: User_talk:Trödel/Archive_4#The_Project_and_template.

I've yet created what will undoubtedly be another controversial template - let me know what you think: {{LDSproject}} -Visorstuff 22:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article proposal

Storm Rider, would you mind commenting on my proposal at Talk:Mormonism? Thx! --AuntieMormom 15:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No offense

For the record, I took no offense at all at your 'sacred cow' reference. I just thought it was funny, not only because it brought up another religion, but because people can and do debate whether Hinduism is monotheistic. And the following discussion proved that, I'm convinced just because I mentioned the word. You're absolutely right, sometimes you just have to laugh at the turns conversations take. Wesley 16:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"What on Earth?"

Reply at User_talk:Reaverdrop#What_on_Earth. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/w:s) 09:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reconstructionism

What's the problem with the guy that reverted my edit to your talk page? It wasn't like offending or something...

Why don't we have a WP article on that movement? I think you should create it. Well, I'll do it, but since I don't know a word about it apart from what you explained to me... --euyyn 01:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for your comments on List of religions. -- Jeff3000 21:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heavenly Mother

I tried to clean this article up a bit - can you take a look --Trödel 16:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Water for Holy Communion

Thanks for the information, Storm. I'm quite happy to accept it. And, in case I unintentionally gave offence, I'd like to clarify that the word "bizarre" related to the statement, not to the practice. I had never heard of any denomination using water, and I didn't know who had added it or how long it had been there. I'm glad you've now edited to make clear that it's LDS members who use water, since otherwise there would still be a danger of someone coming along, reading it, and thinking, "Hey, that can't be true." Since it's now clarified, anyone who's puzzled or sceptical will know where to look for further information. I'm afraid I don't know very much about LDS practices. Cheers, AnnH ♫ 18:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Works -

I see a difference too - but think that is the source of some of the confusion - the empasis on specific ordinances as necessary to salvation - some seing that as a work towards salvation rathet than something else. I'll try to make my thoughts more precies. --Trödel 20:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baby Blessing

Thanks for your help on the baby blessing article--you added a lot to it that I tried to say but couldn't. I look forward to working with you in the future. --Pahoran513 23:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by Opinion Requested

Talk:Jesus#Mormonism on Jesus

Thanking you in advance, Arch O. La ^Grigory Deepdelver 21:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV tag

I'd appreciate your thoughts here. --uriah923^(talk) 22:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiholiday

Hopefully I'm back to editing normally - my wikiholiday was due to family vacations/reunions and a sudden increase in death threats that made my wife a bit uneasy. Anyway, I'm easing my way back into editing. Any articles or discussions needing my imput? -Visorstuff 22:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Literal/symbolic tribal identity

On the Ten Lost Tribes page, Jade Knight says that most LDS think that membership in the tribe of Ephraim, etc., is symbolic rather than literal. I really don't know what "most" Latter-day Saints would say. You've said that the success of missionary work indicates that the audience already had literal membership in a lost tribe, whereas Jade Knight says that folks didn't become members of a lost tribe until being "adopted" by baptism. Would you care to weigh in? Jonathan Tweet 00:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prelude and Fugue

Hi, I noticed that you tagged this article as a speedy. There actually is an assertion of notability made here, however, so I don't think I can speedy it under A7. If you think that this is not notable enough, please put it up for AfD. My guess is that this article will eventually end up being deleted, but it's not a speedy candidate. Thanks! --- Deville (Talk) 13:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

will do

I'll have to do it tomorrow - I should have been home 45 min ago. --Trödel 03:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute at anti-Mormon

In order to gain a consensus concerning the issue at anti-Mormon, would you please comment here? --uriah923^(talk) 04:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed content from History of Earth. Please be careful not to remove content from Wikipedia without a valid reason, which you should specify in the edit summary or on the article's talk page. Thank you. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. TehKewl1 06:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what happened there... I think VandalProof messed up, I noticed that it happened but, I was to late to correct it. Feel free to remove the warning :) TehKewl1 06:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Want to help

I've been gone for a while and am out of the loop. Is there anything LDS related to which I could lend assistance? Keep in mind I'm not from Utah, so helping on those articles is not my forte. User:Pahoran513

If anyone would like to take a peek at the Aaron Wright article, it's quite off-topic. I don't have time today, sorry.  :) --Kyle (ANON Special:Contributions/24.245.73.2)

my RFA

Thx for your support in my RFA - something weird must have happened because your edit deleted some comments, so they were reverted and unfortunately your comment was delted in the process. I'd just fix it but thought since it is my RfA that could be seen as a COI - so I am letting you know about it. ttys --Trödel 10:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome Template

Ahh, you're talking about templates. Template:Welcome and Template:Welcomeg to be exact. You can see most all of them in Category:Welcome templates. They can be slightly confusing at first. Basically, putting something simple into the braces points at the template area. So {{Welcome}} points to Template:Welcome. If Template:Welcome didn't exist, I believe it'd show you the contents of Welcome (the article). Another cool trick is to substitute templates. Use {{subst:welcome}} and when you save it, wikipedia will copy the contents, more or less, of the template into the page you're writing. The next person to edit the page will see all the wikitext. For newbies, it helps a lot to see the text rather than templates. They can also have parameters. Look at Template:Welcome-m The template is designed so that the message you put after the | but before the }} will take the place of the {{{1}}}. The template's page advocates using {{subst:welcome-m|<i>message</i>}} ~~~~. message would appear if you did that, plus it will substitute. Our citation templates, like Template:cite book also use parameters which are named, like title and author, but they are kind of complicated to explain their internal mechanics. Last, Wikipedia:Template substitution has the current guideline on which templates you ought to substitute. Kevin_b_er 07:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

cults and such

Hi StormRider,

I just saw the note you left on my talk page a week or more ago. I guess I've been on an extended wikibreak -- some real life events have demanded a lot of my time and attention lately. I'll take a look at Christianity and see if it isn't resolved by now. Wesley 15:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments on my talk page

Thank you for the nice welcome to me on my talk page. However, the text that I removed from the article was not a deletion: I moved it all to the subarticle: Life of Joseph Smith, Jr. from 1831 to 1844.

Cheers, and happy editing!

(PS Although I realize that you probably posted the message before I did this, I did bring it up on the talk page for discussion.)

Personal attack

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Duke53 | ^Talk 06:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First Vision

Err...this wasn't vandalism; please read Wikipedia:Vandalism for information on what does count as vandalism. I restored that notice because people searching for information on the Mariah Carey DVD are likely to type "First Vision" into the search box rather than "The First Vision". I left a similar notice at the top of The First Vision, directing people to First Vision should they be looking for information on the subject of that article. Extraordinary Machine 17:27, 21 October 2006

Warning

Please stop. If you continue to remove legitimate warning messages from your talk page, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. (UTC) Duke53 | ^Talk 04:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your warnings are meant to intimidate. Further, they demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of WIKI policies you cite. Please spend some time reading each policy before giving warnings to anybody. If you don't understand a policy, at least ask someone to explain it to you. I tire of your petty comments and pitiful attempts at intimidation. You have a lot to learn. Storm Rider ^(talk) 04:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not place warning templates on talk pages of established users, esp. the quazi (at best) official {{wr}} et al. (Wikipedia:Removing warnings is "currently inactive and is kept primarily for historical interest"). Also, please remember to substitute warning templates. Thx. El_C 06:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Duke53 | ^Talk 05:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duke, three points. One: please subst warning templates if you feel you have to use them. Two: if you want to criticise someone for something they said, please quote them, or put in a diff, so that the rest of us can see how much substance the alegations do or don't have. Three: rather than handing our standard warnings, it's better to explain your point, being specific about why feel someone is being unfair to you, always remembering that they may also feel that you are being unfair to them.

Storm Rider, in this case, I think Duke does have half a point:

• "You stretch credulity of your position. ... I think you even see the stupidity of this position and yet you stick to it without any ability to defend yourself. ... More than anything else, I pity you." 03:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC) "
• "you have a remarkable lack of understanding ... you lack the intelligence necessary to use [warnings] ... such pathetic attempts ...". 09:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

These aren't especially bad personal attacks, but they are personal attacks. Whatever Duke said, saying things like this is unlikely to advance anything positive. Regards, Ben Aveling 01:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1) I use templates that Wikipedia offers at Wikipedia: templates; if they don't want us to use them why do they have them there? 2) Anybody who is interested in seeing these attacks can see them; they are right out in the open. What half point don't I have ? He attacked me (this is the first I heard of 'degrees' of attacks being okay); an attack is an attack. 3) As I said I use templates that Wikipedia offers at Wikipedia: templates Duke53 | ^Talk 01:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duke, I'll respond to this on your talk page. Regards, Ben Aveling 03:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Little Duke53 is not a quality editor. His edit history is replete with conflicts on many of the articles which he edits. He has a strong POV and resists any cooperation or compromise on anything; there is only one viewpoint he is willing to accept, his. Further, he has a fundamental lack of understanding of WIKI policies and warnings. I find that he abuses almost everything he uses on WIKI to further his desire to intimidate and achieve the implementation of his viewpoint.

I see very few personal attacks above; none in the first statement though it is harsh and in the second the only thing I see that comes close to a personal attack is telling this person that he lacks the intelligence necessary to use warnings. I would encourage you to review and monitor Duke53's edits from this point forward. He may have the potential to become an asset to WIKI, but it remains to be seen; with proper coaching there may still be hope. However, I have yet to see him take anyone's counsel as valid. Just reviewing his discussion page will show that he contends with all advice proffered him. Not a sign for much hope, but I will assume that others will prove more successful than I have been. Storm Rider ^(talk) 03:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Something can be true and still be a personal attack. I certainly agree that Duke can be his own worst enemy when presenting his side of an argument, and that a lot of users do find it difficult to remain civil with him because of that. It would be a less interesting world if we all approached it in the same way.  :-) Best of luck, Ben Aveling 03:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CIVIL warning

I believe the more appropriate policy for these warnings is Wikipedia:Civility. Wikipedia has many methods of dispute resolution. However, repeatedly making insults about another editor's intelligence and characterizing their edits as whining resolves nothing. Imperfect actions by another editor do not generate a license for you to be rude. Please open a WP:RFC on the article, ask for mediation, or get a WP:3O third opinion. Otherwise, if your behavior does not improve, you will be blocked. Durova^Charge! 07:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Durova, I have been an editor for quite some time; this is the first time in my memory that I have been given a warning, particularly when dealing with editors that have demonstrated in their short history little ability to work cooperatively. I am disappointed in your warning because it only encourages the unwanted behavior on WIKI of Duke53. In addition, instead of promoting a cooperative environment, you force others to post warnings and seek mediation for every action by Duke53 that could conceivably be interpreted as breaking WIKI policies. I am game for it, but you make WIKI out to be a place not for cooperative, intelligent editing, but a place for people with an axe to grind and how many warnings can I issue in every time someone disagrees with my POV. This was not a positive decision. Storm Rider ^(talk) 17:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diminutives

Hey, instead of just deleting all the examples of diminutives in different languages from the Diminutive article, why not just move them off to the pages for those languages if they offend you so? Even if you don't care to edit those other pages, you could at least paste them into the talk pages so that other editors could use them. --Theodore Kloba 12:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Usercheck request

The evidence here doesn't look all that strong to me, so I'm reluctant to do a CheckUser; perhaps you could try this request on WP:RFCU. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for your comment. Don't really know much, just researching. Interesting people. They are difficult to identify, describe, pigeonhole or document. It looks like some others have stepped in and helped to make the page at least a little more of a resource and verifiable. If that included you, thanks again. Petrous 06:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Hello Storm Rider. I wanted to thank you with flowers (well, flower) for taking the time to participate in my RfA, which was successful. I'm very grateful for your support and kind words. I assure you I'll continue to serve the project to the very best of my ability and strive to use the admin tools in a wise and fair manner. Please do let me know if I can be of assistance and especially if you spot me making an error in future. Many thanks once again. Yours, Rockpocket 07:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks

Thank you for the extra feathers on my wings! Thank you so much, Storm Rider, for your support in my RfA, which passed on November 11, 2006, with a final tally of 82/0/2. I am humbled by the kind support of so many fellow Wikipedians, and I vow to continue to work and improve with the help of these new tools. Should you have any request, do not hesitate to contact me. Best regards, Húsönd 20:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal belief system

Hello storm rider. If you dont mind me asking, of what beliefe system are you from?

Thanks, ForTheHope

Mormon mysticism

Could you look at Mormon mysticism? -- 71.35.41.92 15:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that since I decided to involve myself with the AfD and the discussions on the talk page, I should let you know that I was editing Mormon mysticism as 71.35.41.92 (talk · contribs). -- FishUtah 17:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice--next time, if you differ with part of an article, could you please take it to the discussion page instead of just deleting content. 70.133.217.40

Or not. In answer to your question "Why should this be noted" it's because the only reference to occultism in the CHI is that one paragraph which quotes one paragraph from a 1991 letter from the First Presidency. If you search the Church's Library there aren't more definative statements. Just some seminary/institute types saying stay away from Ouijji boards. To folks who've never been outside of Salt Lake, 'occult' may well be synonymous with 'satanism,' while those from outside the Mountain West, and those who've studied latin will recognize the word means hidden. It can have at least two contexts, sacred ritual and sacred experiences not to be profaned; or 'hidden works of darkness.' The quotation is clearly decrying 'hidden works of darkness' but for the sake of those Salt Lakers who may not know, it might be helpful to understand the context in which the First Presidency's message was given so they can weigh for themselves whether it includes only the second group (works of darkness) or also the first (sacred ritual and sacred experiences). 03:15, 13 November 2006 70.133.217.40 (added signature)

I am not aware the CHI is available for all to verify that it is the "only reference" to occultism. Do you have a source for such a statement? You have to be careful about statements on WIKI; they must be verifiable by others. This one is not unless you are aware of the CHI being published on the internet for all to review? I also suspect that there are more than just that one statement.

Occult, in a religous article, is almost always going to bring the initial focus to its most known definition "of or pertaining to magic, astrology, or any system claiming use or knowledge of secret or supernatural powers or agencies." I think that definition will be in any community not just the Salt Lake Valley as you state. The purpose of language is to communicate clearly with others. In this article, the initial writer attempts to draw the conclusion that Mormons in significant numbers are interested in the occult and magic. The only reference used for such a statement was an article from UVSC sociologist who states Mormons have social activities outside the Church. Storm Rider ^(talk) 03:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I take it you don't have access to the CHI--you could ask your Bishop or Stake President.... Yeah probably not. I get your point that because you don't, you have no way of knowing that I did check my own copy of both the 1998 and the new 2006 edition (I haven't destroyed the 1998 copy yet because we haven't received book 2 of the 2006 edition and they make references back and forth...). I hope you appreciate that it's hard to prove a negative: How can you or I or anyone establish that the FP doesn't use the word 'occult' ever. They hardly use the word 'meditate' (other than President McKay.....)

However, everyone can do a search of the Church Library at lds.org with the word 'occult', a google on LDS and occult, and LDS and mormon is not a fun set of sites to search.......

Back to the Fletcher article--I realize that feminism and politics are nice safe topics, but the reason the article was cited was because it describes, mystical practices too, such as fundamentalism, divining, Native American sweat lodge, kava ritual, etc. Omitting these while including the ones you do, is a bit dishonest, don't you think?

I'm still trying to locate a copy of the text Janet Bennion presented at UVSC, since that's the basis of Fletcher's article anyway.

And as for the citations--you quoted in a whole paragraph from Christian Mysticism that doesn't contain a single solitary citation for any of it's points. Tossing in FACT after each statement that makes you a bit queasy about your faith is also, arguably dishonest. [Discourteous comment withdrawn] 04:01, 13 November 2006 70.133.217.40

Accusing others of dishonesty

This is your most recent post on my talk page:

A wonderful bit of logic, but let's try to boil down the important points: The question is not whether I have access to the Handbook, but rather does the public. WIKI holds itself to a standard of what research is available to everyone. If you do not have access to a resource that proves your point,then it is better to simply not state it. It becomes WP:OR.

So should we let the editors of Sealing, Temple, Excommunication, and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints know that their CHI citations violate WP:OR and should be expunged? The standard is verifiability, not universal access to the sources. But if you want to make the case to all those other editors too....okay.

The source for the entire article is based on an article that addressed how Mormons have other interests in their life.

That and the reference to Quinn's book, Owen's paper, and John Brooks' monograph... In other words, no it wasn't the only source, it was just the first non-CHI ref proffered. Nor was it as cotidian as you suggest.

Now, it is true that I find the mere fact that a supposed academic had to "study" the social lives of Mormons and was surprised to find they had other interests other than their church a "DUH" moment.

Funny thing those anthropologists...they tend to study the obvious: In the case of mormonism, it's polygamy, the role of women, and odd social behaviors. But even so, activities like Sweat Lodge, Divination, and drinking Kava seem a little bit more out there for a Christian than joining the Democratic Party or being Pro-Choice--don't you think?

Are you aware of this individuals qualifications or background? Is she really an expert?

Dr. Bennion is an assistant professor of sociocultural anthropology at UVSC. She's lectured at several symposia in Utah Valley. But she's only an assistant professor, for what that's worth.

Regardless, the article did not address mysticism,...

That's the thing....Sweat Lodge, Divination, New Age crystals, etc. A lot of people would call this mysticism--or at least the smoke that suggests the fire may be there. Then you look at Quinn's book or Owen's papers or even FARMS responses to those, and you get the picture that there is a whole lot more going on out there. When you add in Hyrum's membership in the Masonic Lodge in Palmyria, New York..... A case has been made (by scholars) for myticism among the earliest Latter-day Saints.

I get that you haven't seen all of this referenced here, but WIKI's a work in progress. If Tsuzuki et al can put together a reasonable article about it great. If this is all the stubb ever grows to, then it should be purged. But the secondary sources are out there to support a case for Mormon mysticism. Arguably it could be made from the standard works alone (since that's exactly the case that the Christian Mysticism article makes--and all of those scriptural citations are shared in the LDS/Mormon canon....)

I recognize that this information might be disquieting to many Mormons and may be literally news to them. But the research is not particularly recent; and it's from sources far more reliable than the Tanners

I find it dishonest to portray the source as solely a resource for mysticism. It was not.

and I find it dishonest to portray it as though it addressed anything but mysticism.

The term ritual was not used in the entire article. It would also be dishonest to use the term to discribe a kava "ritual" when that is not what the source stated; that would be your interpretation of what she said.

perhaps a better approach would be to link to the Kava articles on Wiki and let the reader draw their own conclusions? Good point.

I have yet to add one, single "citation needed" or "fact" to the article. They came from another editor; however, I am an advocate for providing resources for all articles and particularly those fring[e] articles that have little, if any, support.

My apologies--I assumed those anon edits were yours. I withdraw the question. As to fringes: One woman's fringe.... For example, the Christians consider St. Paul and St. John among the Christian Mystics,

I appreciate the coaching to assume good faith. I drew the wrong conclusion from other entries on your talk page, and will attribute good faith to your editing efforts. I must say I was surprised that the delete request was summarily rejected by the admin.

Happy editing70.133.217.40 02:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Smith, Jr.

Thanks for your reply to my comment. Is there any way this can be made clearer? The links I followed through the page led to some Mormon information, which then led to information on Alexander Campbell. Example: Churches of Christ leads to Campbell, Church of Christ links lead to Smith, but Church of Christ typed in the search bar leads to Campbell. Marrilpet

Shiny new buttons

Two weeks ago I couldn't even spell administratur and now I are one (in no small part thanks to your support). Now that I checked out those new buttons I realize that I can unleash mutant monsters on unsuspecting articles or summon batteries of laser guns in their defense. The move button has now acquired special powers, and there's even a feature to roll back time. With such awesome new powers at my fingertips I will try to tread lightly to avoid causing irreversible damage and getting into any wheel wars. Thanks again and let me know whenever I can be of use. ~ trialsanderrors 06:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Smith: Prophet of the Restoration

As someone who's opinion I value based on your edits, any suggestions about this? -- 12.106.111.10 21:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FamilySearch

Care to weigh in on the AfD for this article? -- 63.224.136.62 03:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

It seems to me that you are acting in an uncivil manner. Please remain civil and don't resort to making personal attacks or instigating edit wars. Duke53 | ^Talk 21:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You would be mistaken. If you have a personal problem I expect you to report me to those who can doing something about it. I view you above edit as an abuse of warnings, a personal attack, and vandalism of my personal page. You have stated in a whining manner, "(except for one editor who I will never answer about anything; he lost any credibility he might have ever had by making up false accusations against me). Duke53 | Talk 02:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)"

You are also desirous of edit wars as evidenced by you latest edit to the Talk:Mountain Meadows Massacre page:

==Outside intervention==

By now we should realize that neither side is going to stop reverting over the 'kidnap' / 'no kidnap' issue; if the 'no kidnap' faction is so certain that they are correct, why haven't they asked for outside intervention in deciding this issue? I attempted twice to get outside help, but apparently did it incorrectly; nobody from outside came to help. I will continue to revert until this issue is resolved once and for all. Duke53 | ^Talk 17:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I caution you to be civil and no further personal attacks. Storm Rider ^(talk) 22:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

D/R Jesus

I noticed this too. I think the old template was blown up, and I think therefore that this will cause a problem on all pages that use it. I will try and fix it on this article. Lostcaesar 01:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

fixed; Lostcaesar 01:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That should only be a problem for quotes from Genesis, if I am not mistaken, since that was the only book where additions were made - or am I wrong about this? Lostcaesar 01:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was refering to the Joseph Smith version, which in my understanding has added material in Gen. If the KJV is the same then I don't see why anyone would object to it on an LDS site. Lostcaesar 02:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glad I could help out a little; thanks for the info on the JS translation. PS, I find the KJV quite nice myself - nice and "English", if you know what I mean. Lostcaesar 02:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Temple Garment

The sarcasm in your edit summary was not called for. pschemp | talk 03:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

replied on pschemp's page: 20:03, 21 November 2006 Storm Rider

I honestly think you sold your soul to wikipedia and you sold out your religion in the name of editing. There are a few of you so called "LDS editors" who have a lot to fear come judgement day.

Re: Endowment

Hallo! I assume you're referring to this revert? I have nothing to do with that article in particular; the text looks exactly correct according to my memory, but that's not the point. My real intent was to clean up after that IP editor, who had editted several LDS articles today in order to remove sensitive information related to what happens inside temples. Here are their contribs. --Masamage 04:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

replied at Masa's talk page. 20:29, 21 November 2006 Storm Rider

As I say, I was only cleaning up. I have zero interest in being involved in the article, so do what you think is best. --Masamage 04:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your mediation case

You have a mediation cabal case you wish to be reviewed. If you allow, I will be glad to take your case. WikieZach| talk 16:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have the page on my watchlist. Nothing has happened. If all parties will not come, I cannot force them to arrive. I will try to help mediate on the page, sorry for the delay (I am in many cases right now). WikieZach| talk 01:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have now began to read some of the logs of debate. If you guys can't cite the things, then it will be deleted. WikieZach| talk 01:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

happy Turkey Day!!!!!

I wish you a very merry Thanksgiving! Hope you and your family have a magnificent day! So, what are you thankful for? Hooray and happy gormandizi^ŋ! --Randfan please talk talk to me!

Happy Turkeyday! Cheers! :) —Randfan!!

Have a great day! Please respond on my talk page (the red "fan" link in my signature). Cheers! :) —Randfan!!

Cheers! :) —Randfan!! has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile at others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

Wikilinks in Anti-Mormonism

I copied this response from my talk page (I'm still fairly new to the Wikipedia community)

Basically it just bugged that the author spoke like the reader was supposed to know who he was talking about; I'm sure I'm not the only one to whom those names were meaningless. I put links on them hoping someone would see the red ones and draw the same conclusion I had and either, a) write a blurb about them, or b) redirect the link to the correct person or subject. I was looking for information and thought others might also be looking for the same information. --Jhlynes 16:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed content

What questions should be asked in the upcoming straw poll? WikieZach| talk 01:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide me with a list of questions you want to be asked in the upcoming straw poll on my talk page. Or post them here [1]WikieZach| talk 21:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. WikieZach| talk 00:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFM

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at [[Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/[2]]], and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. WikieZach| talk 13:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another personal attack

This is your last warning. If you continue to make personal attacks, you will be blocked for disruption. Duke53 | ^Talk 17:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You continue to have a remarkable misunderstanding of personal attack. You also misuse warnings; either learn to use them properly or desist from using them! Storm Rider ^(talk) 18:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]