User talk:208.81.184.4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Important notes
  • Editors using this IP address are doing so exclusively as private individuals.
  • Edits from this IP address should NOT be construed in any way as representing or otherwise speaking on behalf of Vangent, GDIT, or General Dynamics.


Prior conversations archived[edit]

All conversations prior to announcement below were archived to User talk:208.81.184.4/Archive 1 per this request. --Trödel 21:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Restricted editing from this IP address[edit]

Due to a change in company internet usage policy, people using this IP address can no longer be involved with editing anything on Wikipedia wherein such edit may in any manner be considered an expression of "personal opinions on political, social, inflammatory or volatile subjects". This is being interpreted very broadly, and as such, this essentially precludes editors from this IP from participating on Wikipedia above the most basic wp:WikiGnome level (e.g. typos, misspellings, minor formatting fixes). Sorry for this unexpected change, and thank you to everyone behind the named accounts with whom editor(s) from this IP have worked with. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 19:38, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm very sorry to hear that and hope you will be able to return at some point. You will definitely be missed. 72Dino (talk) 20:07, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Archived per your request - just curious - is this related to the purchase of Vangent Inc. by General Dynamics? --Trödel 21:56, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that is exactly the case. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 21:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Sorry. I've enjoyed interacting with you folks through the years.--John Foxe (talk) 16:06, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Sort keys beginning with *[edit]

Someone from this IP address has edited articles to include sort keys beginning with * (asterisk). The result can be seen at Category:American cattlemen, where several articles are sorted before the alphabetical part of the list. I don't see why this has been done. Can you please explain? Thanks. – Wdchk (talk) 23:53, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

In Category:American cattlemen this was intended to separate out other topics from the named people. This is not all that uncommon, though if you find this objectionable, please feel free to revert; I have no intent or desire to be controversial in any way. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 00:13, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. I now understand your intention better. Given that the category's description states that it is to include organizations and associations, as well as men and women, personally I would find it easier to locate articles if they were all sorted alphabetically. However, I don't feel strongly enough about it to make such a call unilaterally. Upon reflection, maybe there is another issue with this category: some of the listed articles are neither men, nor women, nor organizations, nor associations. – Wdchk (talk) 00:40, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Polygamy: What Love Is This?[edit]

I'm not sure if you have retired or not, so I will let you know of the nomination for delation of Polygamy: What Love Is This?. You wp:PROD it about a year ago, and someone removed it and made some token changes. After a year of no real improvements, I have listed it for deletion here. You may want to chime in.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 14:49, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I wish I could, but AfD's are forbidden territory for me for now (see the companies restrictions above). -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 19:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Undos[edit]

This initial comment has been copied here from User talk:Baseball Bugs#Reverts of 208.81.184.4 so this series of comments is easier to follow. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 15:56, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Why did you out-of-hand revert this & this from 208.81.184.4 without providing any reason all? The supposed supporting ref on the temple garment article describing about current LDS Church policy using a youth magazine article from 1977 is about as timely as using a reference from that same year to describe how the Commodore PET is the latest, most current state of the art in home computing. Additionally, there is absolutely no relevance between the RfC about the Southern Poverty Law & the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints: see this for another example where this notification spam was removed. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 00:15, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

The first one was because you removed something sourced, based on nothing but your opinion. If you have an issue with a sourced item, take it up on the article's talk page. The second one was because you deleted someone else's comments on an article talk page, which you must not do. You can respond to them, but don't delete them. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:20, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Wasn't just "my opinion", it's the current policy, and has been for since 1990-1991, shortly sometime after the LDS Church opened a new Beehive Clothing facility for making more garments in order to meet the additional demand they created by disallowing hand-made temple garment (see Wells, Elayne (Feb. 3, 1990), "'Our labors take on an eternal aspect'", LDS Church News  for more on the factory). At that time they also significantly dropped the prices for purchasing garments, so as not to cause a hardship, as usually it was just the poorer Saints that were making their own. The current price of garments is essentially subsidized by the Church, as it is sold at-cost, or realistically really slightly below cost, given they don't factor in costs that a business would. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 00:53, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
As for the offtopic wp:canvassing, I removed from Talk:Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, which was trying to get people to look at Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center#RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles?, it is perfectly acceptable to refactor such a notice when it is mass posted to talk pages (see the contribs from MrX (talk · contribs)) on 22 Sep that have a edit summary of "RfC Notification" for a better view of all of the talk pages this identical notice was posted on), provided the notice is off-topic or tangential to the actual subject the article talk page is there to discuss. This is clearly the case with this talk page, as it also was with Talk:Ezra Taft Benson where user:Jgstokes removed this identical notice. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 15:54, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

October 2012[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Manti Utah Temple has been reverted.
Your edit here to Manti Utah Temple was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (http://web.archive.org/web/20060427010323/http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/4909/manti.html, http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/4909/manti.html, http://web.archive.org/web/20060427010323/http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/4909/manti.html) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 20:22, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice.

Obvious mistake by this bot, and have reverted. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 20:50, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

LDS material[edit]

Please note that in this edit I moved your material, with refs to the new article. Please extend it there. There will probably be a lot more material there, as denominational views get expanded. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 21:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok great, thanks for the heads up. When I added that to Kingdom of God (Christianity) I was responding to what you said in your initial revert on that page, and hadn't realized that you'd created Kingdom of God (Christian denominational variations) after that revert. When I did find the newer Kingdom of God (Christian denominational variations) I thought I should just stop and wait to see where things were going before I tried anything else. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 22:01, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
No worries. Obviously, this is a topic where many denominations have diverse views, and in time that material will grow. In any case, now you have LDS refs, so that part is in good shape. The Eastern Orthodox etc. needs help. History2007 (talk) 22:12, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Keep up the good work![edit]

Editors Barnstar.png The Editor's Barnstar
I'm always seeing you doing good things when I do RC Patrol, keep up the good work! Ever thought of creating an account? Or perhaps you have one, but you're not allowed to log into it (which is the case at the hospital I work at, though they say I'm not allowed to go on Wikipedia at all from there anymore). PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 20:55, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! For me it's both - I have an account, but am not comfortable using it at work, where sysadmins here could very easily tie that semi-anonymous account to me personally. However for most of my WikiGnoming activities, I really don't feel a need to use that account, either at work or home; I really only us it when I'm creating an article, or posting pictures in Commons, and its been quite a while since I've done either of those things.-- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 21:05, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Priesthoods[edit]

Hi, I'm not sure if you noticed, but the paragraph you added in this edit was slightly redundant with the 2nd paragraph in that section. Do you think it would be possible to merge the 4th paragraph into the 2nd paragraph, thereby avoiding the redundancy? It would also be nice to get stuff into somewhat of a chronological order. (I had placed the priesthood before the BoM/revelations because the Aaronic priesthood came during translation, if I recall correctly.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

How does the new edit look? -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 20:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Much better, thank you! ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:54, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Bill McKeever/Mormonism Research Ministry citations[edit]

I've reverted a number of edits you made because you didn't feel that Bill McKeever/Mormonism Research Ministry was a "respectable source" for certain material. I feel like the citations are perfectly respectable because they faithfully reproduce original documents. Just because they're hosted on a site that thinks that Mormonism is wrong doesn't strike me as a very good reason for removing the citations--should we remove all links to lds.org because it's pro-Mormonism? Hope that makes sense. If there's some policy for not citing to any website with a strong position on a subject (even when the citation is to a portion of the site quoting an original source) I'm happy to be corrected, but it seemed very counter-productive to prevent readers from seeing the original sources when they are relevant and available. Regarding the Journal of Discourses citations, I wouldn't be opposed to citing to the BYU library versions instead of the MRM ones, but I'm not going to go through and do it all myself and I don't see any reason that the MRM ones aren't appropriate.

Also, I considered reverting your edits that removed links to journalofdiscourses.com but decided not to since you said it's an "unreliable" source. I have no idea about that, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but what are you basing that judgment on? Because if it is reliable, it seems like a nicely formatted resource that I'd like to link to. biggins (talk) 03:45, 18 January 2013 (UTC) (And lest anyone accuse me of bias against Mormonism, I am an active, believing Mormon--not that it should matter, really, but figure it couldn't hurt to throw that out there.)

journalofdiscourses.com does not list who owns &/or is running the site, how to contact them to address mistakes, where they got their material, or what their methodology is for ensuring correct transcription/representation. Additionally all material found at journalofdiscourses.com is available at much more reliable and credible academic sources, so it is less than useful at WP. Likewise I was not removing all MRM links; if you look at the edit history I actually updated and corrected citations in multiple articles related to that organization, where citations stayed in place because they where appropriate. Also I dispute that MRM is "faithfully reproduce original documents"; they are well known for their sloppy pseudo-scholarly approach, and are far less concerned with accuracy than, say, the Tanners; their involvement with historical documents are strictly mostly limiting to simplistic "gotcha" blog-style transcriptions and poor quality images, which are both less then credible as a source for those documents, especially since they do not document their own sources for these documents. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 15:20, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Also I could care less if a source is affiliated with the LDS Church, or seen as friendly to it, and I am not interested in limiting critical materials. My issue in this case is that historical documents which are hosted, transcribed, and described using good methodologies by real scholars and related organizations are what we should primarily use in these instances; conversely if source material is hosted by overly-polemic organizations who have little accountability and no incentive to use best-practices for presenting that original material, that citation is suspect (at best). -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 15:54, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
I agree with 208 on this one. MRM should almost never be used as a source on Wikipedia, unless they are being used as a source about themselves and the material falls within the guidelines of WP:SELFSOURCE. As for some of the documents they host, I would recommend finding more reliable sources for those documents, or better, find a secondary source that directly supports the claims being made in the article about what the primary document says. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:09, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Alright, I proposed citing to a pdf version of the letter hosted at EugeneEngland.org on the article's talk page. I guess that would be the best place to continue the discussion. Thanks! biggins (talk) 22:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Peoples Ticket, Salt Lake City, circa 1876, Mormons, front of.jpg[edit]

Well thanks for the additional information to my donation of the "Peoples Ticket". I certainly appreciate that, whoever you are mystery person.

Sincerely,

JTN Jnarrin (talk) 05:44, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks; glad that you found the information useful. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 16:41, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Covenant (biblical)[edit]

Information.svg Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edit to Covenant (biblical) constitutes vandalism and has been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Donner60 (talk) 21:46, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, how exactly is it vandalism:
Your revert of that change pointed the main template in that section back to the wrong article, and mistakenly removed all of the summary material from that section. How do you justify your revert, as there was no vandalism, and in fact you removed material that existed on that article for months until the single edit by a new user mistakenly removed it? -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 22:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I did not know or follow the full sequence so I made a mistaken judgment based on a small part of it. I am sorry for the mistake. Please accept my apology. Since it appears this may be a bit complicated, I do not want to make a further mistake on it. Please make the proper change so it is done right. Again, I am sorry for the mistake and that you have needed to go through the explanation. I have deleted the warning above. Donner60 (talk) 22:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for withdrawing the claim of vandalism. A better way to withdraw a warning is to strike thru it, so the rest of the conversation makes sense; I've restored the warning, demonstrating how to do a strike thru, so you can see how it is done. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 22:23, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Also, based on your recent edit history, please remember that wp:IPs are human too, and people editing from IPs do make valuable contributions to WP. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 22:26, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 22:29, 6 May 2013 (UTC) I might add: Everyone makes an occasional mistake and I will gladly admit mine and try to correct them. They seem to be a very, very small percentage of my edits. If you look at the edits and reversions that I have made objectively (not just that they were made to IP edits), I think you could agree that all or almost all of them are vandalism; maybe a very few, if any, are even borderline. You will also find that if I see a borderline edit, I correct or add a reference rather than reverting the edit - that is, when the edit appears to be accurate and in good faith, not straight vandalism. I will also give more detail on talk pages if I see some obvious flaw that could be corrected. I have been around long enough to know that IP users make valuable contributions and even revert vandalism from time to time. I also know, based on experience and wikipedia studies, that most vandalism is done by IPs. Donner60 (talk) 22:38, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, and yes, we all make mistakes, including me. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 18:36, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Categories for Peter Whitmer log home[edit]

Hello there. I am fully aware of how categories work on Wikipedia and categorizing the home that the Whitmers lived in with the family is more than appropriate. There is no restriction on the Whitmer family category limiting it only to articles on people. See WP:CAT if you haven't already. "The central goal of the category system is to provide navigational links to all Wikipedia pages in a hierarchy of categories which readers, knowing essential—defining—characteristics of a topic, can browse and quickly find sets of pages on topics that are defined by those characteristics." Seeing as the notability of the house is directly related to its connections with the Whitmers and the foundation of the Latter Day Saint movement, having it categorized with the family makes sense since people looking for articles on the family would likely find their most notable place of lodging significant. --JonRidinger (talk) 22:54, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

For people, the more correct guidance is wp:Categorization of people, and the very first section reads like this: "Keep people categories separate. While some categories validly contain both people articles (biographies) and other types of article, categories with a title indicating that the contents are people should normally only contain biographical articles and lists of people, and perhaps a non-biographical main article, though this can also be added in a text note at the top of the category. This is for clarity and ease of use, and to preserve the integrity of trees of people articles."
The name of the category (Category:Whitmer family) clearly defines that its scope is people: the most fundamental definition of a family does not include non-human things, or places, such as a house. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 23:03, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Also, BTW, I am a big fan of your LDS related images over on Commons; thank you especially for the images of Kirtland. I have ancestors that lived in Kirtland, but I've never made it out to your stomping-grounds there in Ohio. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 23:08, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! I live less than an hour from Kirtland and am there multiple times a week for rehearsals at the Kirtland Stake Center, pretty much every summer.
Thanks for your reply too! In looking at the Categorization of people, while I understand what you're trying to say, I think what it means is if the category were "Whitmer family members" or something with the word "people" (like the "People from xxxx" categories). Because it has "family", yes, I can go with the basic definition of a family, but the house is still very relevant to the Whitmer family even being a thing as opposed to a person. Perhaps there is a better way to categorize them, but the house definitely needs to be categorized with the Whitmers, whether it be a parent or subcategory or something like that if not in the Whitmer family category itself (perhaps putting the family members in a subcategory). I think in this case with the category being pretty small and not likely to grow much (if at all), it's not a bad thing if all the Whitmer family-related stuff is together. I can't think of any other place that would be categorized with the family besides that house. --JonRidinger (talk) 23:39, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment[edit]

A discussion has been opened - where subsequent discussion should take place - at:

Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Is_MoStudies_Review_a_publisher_of_review_articles.3F.

(Neutral statement: At issue is the description of a scholarly journal, turning on allowable summary or interpretations from statements within what may or may not be held as reliable sources.)

--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:28, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Perfection (Latter Day Saints)[edit]

You have a reply at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Perfection (Latter Day Saints), when you have a moment I am no longer watching this page—whisperback if you'd like a response czar · · 18:49, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Your opinion and expertise would be greatly appreciated[edit]

You had been "pinged" recently to provide some input regarding a discussion involving Mormon Studies Review and so are now being appropriately canvassed (per wp:CANVASSING) to participate in the deletion discussion for the Review's brand-new "step-sibling" journal, Interpreter -- here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture. Thanks for your consideration of this request.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:10, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Hartford Connecticut Temple[edit]

Thanks for moving the Hartford Temple and updating the template. I didn't have time to do it myself. Thanks again. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 00:15, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

No problem, glad to help. Also, on a side note it looks like we also have an updated picture of the Phoenix Arizona Temple as of Sunday. On commons there is now a category of several different shots, and I'm not sure that the one that got added to the template for that temple is the best one to use. When you have time, could you take a look? -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 15:53, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Joseph Smith - FAC[edit]

You may be interested to know that I have put the article on Joseph Smith up as a nominee for Featured Article Status! I think the article has come a long way, and has a very good chance of being featured this time around. I would personally appreciate it if you took a moment to review the article and vote for it (or against it, I suppose) at it's FAC.

Thanks! --Trevdna (talk) 19:52, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Hey, if you're interested, I'm trying to better up the citations in this article, and I could definitely use some help. Right now I'm trying to get rid of instances where there are 2 and 3 cites per sentence...basically just combining them and weeding out the duplicates. There are tons of little changes and fixes that need to be made (see the FAC linked above), so feel free to do whatever...only if you're interested of course. ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:09, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Brandon Flowers[edit]

Dear Sir, I have been editing this page for multiple years. I am keenly aware that the view of a previous generation of members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints regarding African Americans does in no way reflect the view of Mr. Flowers directly. The secondary source you cite presents that as a view of Mr. Flowers' religion which could be liberally considered libel. Moreover, the current source is a primary source not from the perspective of a third party and DOES meet all of the criteria of a primary source as acceptable under wikipedia.--Joemeservy (talk) 21:57, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Refrain from adding that article.

REALLY?!?!? You're ordering me to not edit an article? Who do you think you are? You don't wp:OWN that article. You don't even know how to properly add a new section to a talk page - they go at the bottom of the talk page! Also you have no idea if I'm a Sir, so don't make assumptions like that, unless you intentionally want to look like an idiot. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 22:38, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Also, how are you "keenly aware" of Flowers views? Are you claiming to be him, or a family member, or perhaps a close friend or business associate? Are you his agent, or in any other way editing Wikipedia on his behalf or at his instruction? -- 208.81.184.4 (talk)
I am a friend of Mr. Flowers and a former assistant to his manager, Robert Reynolds of Reynolds & Associates. Robert regularly contacts me regarding the editing of Mr. Flowers' wikipedia page ever since I entered law school and left full time employment.--Joemeservy (talk) 01:11, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Why have you never before stated this wp:conflict of interest? Are you unaware of WP guidelines (such as wp:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide) regarding this complex subject? -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 16:47, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I am not currently employed by them. I have previously worked for them but am an agent unto my own self. Also, I am an American. Brandon Flowers is a professional pop/rock musician who presents art for fans.--Joemeservy (talk) 18:26, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Employment is not the only form of COI -- you have a very close association with Flowers and the people working for him, which makes you subject to the COI guidelines. Also your description of your nationality, and Flowers musical audience have nothing to do with what we are discussing, so why bring it up? -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 18:31, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Nevermind; at this point I don't care and I'm completely wp:DISENGAGEing with you. Based on the conversation here and at your talk page (permalink), I really want no more contact with you, and ask that you reciprocate. I leave you to do whatever you wish with the Brandon Flowers article without any interference from me; however I cannot say what other Wikipedia editors will do, and I bare no responsibility for their conduct. Please keep in mind that I didn't originate the addition of the Slate article you object to into that article; I'm only one of several editors that reverted you in your wp:Edit War, and I am not even the most recent person to do so. Also, because I am now following your order to essentially cease and desist from editing that article, and since I have disengaged with you and I will no longer edit the associated talk page as well, I now have no control or influence on wither the material you object to continues to appear in the Brandon Flowers article. I hope you come to understand the chilling effects of your veiled threats, and that they are counter-productive here at Wikipedia, but as you have stated you have found offense with my actions, I also hope you can also see that I have now done all that I can reasonably be asked to do. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 19:52, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Please create a username! :) And better sources[edit]

Hi 208.81--- I saw you because you flagged a source as being unreliable/biased. I notice your ip seems to crop up a lot on the same pages and you engage in discussion, so I really really want to encourage you to join the wikipedia community in picking a name for yourself so we can put a "name" to you.

I think I've constructively interacted with you on three or four different articles now, but haven't noticed it until now. So pick a name so that you can make friends on here with people who don't memorize ip numbers!

In reference to the unreliable source-- I just want to established the siblinghood of two individuals, so if the rigdon site is unreliable, please help point me to a better source to establish the two individuals were related. I don't want to be using unreliable sources!

--HectorMoffet (talk) 17:26, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hector, I've also interacted with the person/persons behind this IP a lot, and I've seen a couple of requests for them to create a user. I realize that you come here with the very best of intentions, but there are reasons why they are unwilling/unable to use an account. (I'll leave it to them to explain if they wish.) Because I'm not good at memorizing numbers either, I've taken to simply calling them 208. Perhaps you could adopt a similar solution? I personally like them as an IP editor...it serves as a reminder to me that IPs are people too and that they often make very good contributions. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:40, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
O, be some other name! // What's in a name? ...  ;-) -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 19:55, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Please see User talk:208.81.184.4/Archive 1#User Name? for a less cryptic response. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 20:27, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Every time I read that thread it makes me laugh. It reminds me of people who have multiple personalities (Dissociative Identity Disorder, I guess is the proper term) and I think of funny situations that might crop up if I shared an IP with multiple people. I think I'd have fun "stalking" myself and correcting "my" grammar in talk page posts. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:58, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Number of edits[edit]

Hello '208.81.184.4'

Not sure how many people are editing from this IP, but you have racked up an impressive number of edits, click here if you want to see how many. I was an IP editor, known as '220', for several years too. :-) 220 of Borg 13:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! That's only about half of it, though; editor(s) from this IP address have a comparable number in Commons as well. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 19:41, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 :-O Never thought of that, I'll have to have à look there. I've done very little work there myself. 220 of Borg 18:10, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

List of Utah state symbols[edit]

Wikipedia:Perennial proposals is not a valid reason to revert. The first sentence clearly states, "This is a list of things that are frequently proposed on Wikipedia, and have been rejected by the community several times in the past." The link you gave is not policy and only has proposals that were shot down.

No need to add Utah History Encyclopedia to the general section. It is already listed in the references and the General section is usually for official sources... ie State of Utah in this case. Bgwhite (talk) 22:14, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually you did not read Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Changes to standard appendices correctly: "The standard appendices at the end of an article (e.g., See also, Notes, References, Further reading, and External links) should be changed to the system preferred by the editor/a particular professional field/the editor's school." It is explicitly stating that See also, Notes, References, Further reading, and External links are the WP standard appendix sections, and the proposals being rejected are ones to deviate from this; your customized appendices are the deviation from the WP standard, not mine. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 12:50, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Also I did not link to the Utah History Encyclopedia generally, but to the specific "Utah State Symbols" article from that source, which is directly related to the article in question. Since you object to it being included in the references section, it could alternately fit in a Further Reading section. Also the work is authoritative, the author of the specific article is a noted historian of Utah, and there is no reasonable reason to exclude it from a further reading section. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 13:00, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Stop it right now. You have been adding this book and re-arranging this book into over a hundred articles. I don't know what your fascination is with the book, maybe you are an editor, you work for University of Utah or you are a fan.
Per WP:Further reading, "Further reading is primarily intended for publications that were not used by editors to build the current article content, but which editors still recommend." The book is already listed twice in the article, there is no need to keep spamming the article further. The state sources are listed in the General section because they are the authoritative source and they are upto date. Linda Thatcher is a Mormon historian, not sure how that makes her an authority on state symbols.
I'm not deviating from the WP standard when it comes to notes and references. I've already showed you Featured Lists (FL) and Featured Articles (FA) that use the format. Other Featured lists that use it are List of Kentucky state symbols, List of Maryland state symbols, List of Oregon state symbols and List of Washington state symbols. If you notice the Utah page uses the exact format as the other FL state symbol pages, including what goes into the general ref section. Bgwhite (talk) 20:46, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I generally find ad hominem discussion of little value, but since you seem to have some sort issue with me, I'll clarify a few things. I am not an editor, contributor, or otherwise involved with the Utah Historical Encyclopedia, nor do I have any relationship to the University of Utah. I'm also not a "fanatic" about that work, even though I do find it a useful resource here on WP.

What I am is a WikiGnome who generally works on articles related to the Latter Day Saint movement and the Western United States. I often work specifically on cleaning up references. On October 30 I found that a there are a large number of articles that were dead-linking to old URLs for the UHE (and in some cases being mistakenly removed because the ref was not complete enough for most people to find the correct resource). I've used the external link search to start working thru them (see [1] & [2]). When I started there were over 300 articles that were pointing to the old, deadlinked site, where now there is about only 125 left. While fixing a UHE ref on Deseret (Book of Mormon) I noticed that List of Utah state symbols did not include the "Utah State Symbols" UHE article, and it seemed a natural fix so I added it. And yes I did some other formatting fixes that I'm tired of discussing, and will not be pressing you about.

This editor does recommend the "Utah State Symbols" UHE article as being a very useful summary on the main topic of this WP article; even though other articles found in that multi-volume encyclopedia are being referenced in the article, there is no good reason why we can not also include in the further reading section a specific entry to the "Utah State Symbols" UHE article.

Also, please review the edit history on this article; you will find I previously have made other significant contributions to this article, dating back to a couple of months after this article was first created in 2008; this article is not a new interest to me, so I'd ask you to wp:AGF with my desire to contribute here. "Stop it right now" smacks of wp:OWN, and I find this tone inappropriate. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 22:33, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I've never attacked you or whatever you think the "ad hominem" crap is. I haven't put you down or have a beef with you. My beef is you changing the article.
Well, let's see, I helped get List of governors of Utah, List of cities and towns in Utah, United States congressional delegations from Utah, and List of cities and towns in Utah to FL. I helped get Jordan River (Utah) to FA. I've added references to UHE in all of those articles. I've also rescued FL from the chopping block and had to demote FL articles as they were changed beyond repair. They key is demote.
I've seen you change the UHE refs in all the above articles. I never complained. I've seen you change refs on the other articles in my watchlist and never complained. But when you started changing the reference format of an FL because it "wasn't standard", I drew the line. It is standard. It is used in FL and FA article. I showed you this, but you refused. The format was required in some of the lists to achieve FL status. That is why I said "Stop it right now". I hate people who change things for no reason and against policy. Again, Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Changes to standard appendices is not policy, policy is Wikipedia:Layout#Notes and references. The article follows policy. I'm very protective when it comes to any FL or FA. The idea is to keep them there and not let them be demoted.
  1. I've shown you repeatably how the article follows FL/FA and policy on the references.
  2. UHE adds no value to what is already in the article. It is just repeating what the other general sources say, except that UHE is not up to date and doesn't contain most symbols.
FYI... the talkback message on talk pages is somewhat obsolete. Use {{U}}, {{ping}} or User:Bgwhite on your talk page and people with get a notification message. Only time I've used a talkback message is for new editors.
Bgwhite (talk) 23:51, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
@Bgwhite: I did not say that you attacked me, but you did start discussing me personally, questioning if I had some sort of a relationship with the UHE. Comments about an editor and speculations about their motives are by definition ad hominem. I apologize if you feel that I was being dismissive of your points about the formatting of appendices in my last post; I felt no need to engage with you further on that topic at the time because you had already made your points very clearly and I had nothing else to bring to that subject; just to be clear, I completely surrender to your judgment on that matter, and I again see no reason to discuss it further. I still feel that the "Utah State Symbols" UHE article would add value to the readers of List of Utah state symbols, even if you find it dated/incomplete, but I'm not going to attempt to add it back at this point. As you stated you are "very protective" of articles on your watch-list, and you obviously feel I have breached some sort of threshold here, where you will no longer tolerate edits by me on this article, so I'm just going to move on to more interesting things. Also thanks for the tip on talkback, and my usage of it in no way was meant to insinuate that I thought you were a new user or to insult you in any way. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 16:49, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
I have no problems on you editing any articles, on or off my watchlist. This includes the symbols article. As I've said, I've seen you editing pages on my watchlist and had no problems with any of your edits until now. The re-arranging of the references is what "sparked" my interest. I questioned you about your association with UHE because it is highly unusual to go thru so many articles fixing one ref. For example, I'm currently dealing with sockpuppets adding http://www.musiki.org to any article about a Turkish musician. I never thought you insinuated anything when adding the TB message. I just thought you weren't aware of the templates. About a month after notifications came on-line, I did the same FYI statement on a user's talk page. I was told that I'm a Nazi for suggesting the fascist idea and my talk page was replaced with over 20 TB.
When I first left a message, I saw your talk page and knew you weren't a typical IP editor. So, I wasn't assuming the usual IP editor routine. Besides, adding a ref to the UofU is completely understandable to be done by an IP. I wouldn't go that low, but if I did, I wouldn't want anybody to know I was a Ute sympathizer. My blood runs blue.
Things could get worse. From User talk:Ross-Novak, I guess I need to find a lawyer, "...if the page shall be so unfairly censored, insulted and changed again, there will be repercussions against the only person who has been making them, and, they will be directly presented to a Court in order to be taking very serious measures against those" Bgwhite (talk) 08:34, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks![edit]

Good day -- Thank you for responding to Excusatio, I appreciate you stepping in and offering advice. I am also grateful that I didn't need to Google "LDS" to figure out what he was talking about. Lettik (talk) 14:30, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Community of Christ Infobox[edit]

Someone has put the Community of Christ infobox up for deletion because he feels that we shouldn't be using an infobox on more then one page, (see here). This template is used the same way that {{Infobox LDS Church}} and his reason for deletion could very easily be applied to that page. I think that perhaps some more editor of Later Day Saint pages need to chime in, of we are going to find that this will happens to a number of LDS Related infobox templates.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 13:23, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

@ARTEST4ECHO: Looks like your concerns are right on target: see template:Infobox LDS Church & Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 December 2#Template:Infobox LDS Church. - 208.81.184.4 (talk)

Lost boys (Mormon fundamentalism)[edit]

Hi, I've restored the archive URL to the citation for the reasons described in Wikipedia:LINKROT. —rybec 20:14, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Aaronic Priesthood[edit]

First, like others have done I would recommend that you use a user name as opposed to the obnoxious ip address, second concerning the change you made to my references from William G. Hartley. I intentionally placed page numbers individually not as a group because when someone wishes to verify the facts referenced, it is easier to read one page rather than the entire book/article/or whatever it be. Also, the short citation style seems to be the "used" style on this page and according to guideline from wikipedia, we editors should try to match the same style to avoid what has happened to the article aaronic priesthood from happening, which is very unsightly. Please do not take me the wrong way, but I try to adhere to certain guidelines and preferences when editting to make it easier on those that follow. I have had to, in the past, go through large publications just to ferret out a single piece of information that would have been easier to find had the original editor used a single page reference instead of pp 14-296. Thanks and keep up the editing and please get a username. speednat (talk) 21:47, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Individual page numbers are now back on that article for your recently added paragraphs; is this satisfactory? -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 22:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
I was near simultaneously redoing it; however I also reworked your references to match the style that was already incorporated in the article. I hope this does not come across the wrong way. Looking at your edit history, it seems you are similar to me in my beliefs, and I sincerely do not wish to step on toes, my intention is to improve and expand the Wiki's, by adding information and also by making it easier to read, research, and verify. Thanks for all your excellent LDS additions . speednat (talk) 22:14, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Also, concerning the Aaronic Priesthood article, I was planning on adding more to it from that same Journal article which is about 80 pages long. speednat (talk) 22:16, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Glad that you are going to expand; the article could use the work. The Encyclopedia of Mormonism is a single large work, and shouldn't be be listed multiple times in the ref's section. In the inline portion I cited in as short of a style as is reasonable in this instance for these entries (which is why they didn't have the ISBN, etc on each of them them). -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 22:18, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
The problem I have is that the Citation styles are clashing. We have a short style (already established) and then the longer style. It is accepted that the styles should match. I don't want to just revert your changes as that just causes hurt feelings hence the communication here so that we can try to attain an amenable solution. Please think on this and help me come up with a way to make it look more professional. Thanks speednat (talk) 22:23, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
With deferring kinds of works being cited, especially when citing from a very large compendium of multiple works (such as the EoM), one may not always be able to match perfectly one particular citation style. I've further truncated the EoM entries to truncate off the editor, as it is not needed for disambiguation, so the inline citations are as short as possible while also including the entry-specific details needed to properly created the individual authors. This seems to be a reasonable compromise -- what do you think? -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 22:31, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
It still is a differing style. I don't know the best solution. I am trying to find an answer or where this problem has been dealt with before to see what others have done, but I am coming up empty. I will continue to search for a precedence,but in the meanwhile I will defer. It is not, at this point, something that should be causing aggravation. However, if you haven't already, take a look at Citation style differences. thanks again speednat (talk) 22:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Ok I see your point, but it looks equally bad in the ref section to repetitively list the same publication information for the same overarching work; given that, I tried something a little unusuial, again to see if we can come to a meeting of the minds. Please take a look. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 22:55, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Nice I like the compromise, the only sticking point I now have is on the page #'s on mine, but I will wait until I read the entire article and edit from that. Again thanks for working with me and making it look good.
I would like to adjust the references to parenthesize the years and doing so is going to require adjusting out the {{harvnb}} templates. I don't want to start another row with you, and also to change the references that I placed back to the page #'s down below, since that was the style to begin with. I won't change the adjustment for your Encyclopedia of Mormonism references that we agreed looked good. Please work with me on this. Thanks again. speednat (talk) 17:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Sure, go for it. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 17:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks speednat (talk) 17:46, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
@Speednat: Now that I see your intent, I guess I misunderstood: I thought you had meant that you were going to fix the harv style refs that I had consolidated and used the {{rp}}, not that you were going to remove all of the harv ref templates. There is no benefit to the article or indeed to the reader for you to do so, as the "Hartley, William G. (1996), p. 95" formatting is essentially the same as "Hartley 1996, p. 95" except you lose the link to the ref section item both when you hover over the ref in the article text, as well as in the notes section. Given that, your personally preferred format has no benefits, and I do not think we slavishly need to keep this, regardless of any perception that this is the "established style" for refs on this article. Until your recent edits on 22 November 2013‎ there was no "established style" for refs on this article, and such a recent claim to "FIRST!" does not merit much weight in the way of precedent. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 22:20, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm also very concerned by the close paraphrasing of Hartley 1996 in the text you added today. Additionally the 1849-1877 section is so long and detailed that it is creating a wp:WEIGHT issue on the article; ideally it would be somewhere around 3 paragraphs with 4 sentences each, and wouldn't include the extensive BY quote, nor have as much trivia and references to non-notable people. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 22:43, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Sorry been ill for a few days. Maybe I am getting a bit detailed. Let me finish up and then let's pose the question as to whether the article should be created for History of the Aaronic Priesthood (LDS Church), and then move the majority of the information over. speednat (talk) 21:25, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Sorry to hear that you've been ill; hope you are feeling better now. I'm fine with waiting a week or two to see what your final results are with this series of edits. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 21:37, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Brilliant Idea Barnstar Hires.png The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
Thanks again for your idea and compromise on Aaronic Priesthood speednat (talk) 06:28, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Quality scale[edit]

Hi ... I added an updated quality scale ranking to update Colonia Díaz. Could you take a look at it make sure I was right? Thank you! Bobjgalindo (talk) 15:26, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

re: Category:Latter Day Saint culture[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, 208.81.184.4. You have new messages at Fayenatic london's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Please quit stalking me and other things[edit]

First, I would like to point out that I do not appreciate you Wikihounding me. For someone that has edited near nothing but LDS articles, it seems kind of weird that you would happen upon an obscure article like Operation Z. Second, if you would do a little research before randomly throwing out templates, you would see that the author of the Operation Z article--Me-- has already realized that there is a duplicity issue and has attempted to start a discussion. Third, going back to the template --harvnb--. There is no set way to make a FA regardless of what you show or state to me. Just because some articles show that they use that specific template is what some people would call anecdotal evidence -- meaning Wikt:correlation does not imply causation. BTW, I do like the harvnb template, so my dislike for your arguments is in no way influenced by my logic. I just do not enjoy being stalked and having to defend myself against an editors pointed attempts at subtle harassment. I am giving notice to please cease your stalking behavior. speednat (talk) 20:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

@Speednat: First, please assume good faith: you had said you were going to work on Aaronic priesthood (Latter Day Saints) but didn't. I did check Special:Contributions/Speednat to see if there was recent activity by you (wondering if perhaps you may have fallen ill again), as you had mentioned above that you had needed more time to work on that article. Once I saw that you had made quite a number of recent contributions, I assumed that you had lost interest in the article, so I made the changes that I had previously mentioned.
I have in no way harassed you in my actions today (I support both the existence of Operation Z (1944) and deferred to you on what the proper names is on the topic). As for the Harv templates, I'm not the only one that has tried to explain this to you: this user did a much better job of it than I have.
As far as Operation Z (1944)/Z Plan (Japan), in looking at your user history I noticed that you had created that article yesterday, and so I looked at it to see if it was just a stub, which might indicate that you may not be editing at "full-steam" at this point; instead I found a start class article on a topic I'd never heard of that was pretty interesting. I do have an interest in WWII, but the guys at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history are usually so on top of things that I've found little if anything I can do to contribute to those kinds of articles. Likewise I have an interest in Japan, but my Japanese language skills have regressed to a point where I can usually do little to help on those articles, as most of the sources are in Japanese. Adding the merge templates to those two articles is non-controversial WikiGnoming, especially as you had already opened a related discussion on the talk page. The whole point of those discussions is that you are inviting other people to discuss the topic, including random passers-by, and in the cases of duplicate articles, the templates I added only enhance that goal.
How can you know what I generally edit if you didn't also look at my edit history? There is no crime in this, as looking at this is one way to get a feel for another editor. However keep in mind that it doesn't always give a complete picture. One of the reasons I seem to get stuck edit articles related to wp:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement here on WP is that I can hold my own on these topics; usually when I have tried to branch out, I have been slapped down, as you will see in my edit history for the last 7+ years, and also on the old User talk page associated with this IP. I suppose that I really am not surprised at yet another incident feeding into that negative feedback loop, which again seems to push me into generally staying in the Mormon ghetto, where apparently I belong. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 21:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
I feel like an @$$ now, let me apologize, I guess I have been doing too many things at once. First, concerning the rant about the harvnb templates, I got you confused with someone else --BGWhite--, I still feel the same way. That there is no set way, not that there shouldn't be, but there isn't. Now with that said, I have decided that I like how the harvnb works ...mostly, so I have started to use it. Concerning the Aaronic Priesthood article, I have limited time to work on it, as I am a full-time student with 5 kids, a demanding wife, and the source material is not a regular book ie. can only be checked out for a limited time with a dangerous overdue fine level, so I try to do that work at school which is where I try to do my homework --see 5 kids above--- however the wife--- see wife above-- likes me home as soon as possible because of the kids ---again see kids above. It just seemed that you were stalking me, I have had a similar thing occur on Wiktionary and I love to edit over there but the headache I get forces me to do that less and less because of one person. speednat (talk) 21:58, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
It's a great honor & privilege to be both a spouse & a father, and I completely respect the challenges you face. Cherish them, as you never know how long you will have them. Both they and your studies are far more important than this shared hobby you & I have of editing Wikipedia. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 22:26, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
...but please keep editing when you reasonably can (many hands, light work, etc/asf)... -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 23:09, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Parable of the Olive Tree[edit]

Hi. Thank you for adding a box to the "talk page" for this article, which I hope will encourage more editors to work on it. I'm the person who originally started the article, but (as you can surely see) I'm no theologian. If you know of any skilled LDS editors who might make a useful contribution, please mention this article to them. Thank you. RomanSpa (talk) 02:48, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Notes to self[edit]

Remember the following:

Thanks. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 16:37, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 17:20, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Non-dispersing sub-cats[edit]

I noticed your edits on the categorization of Mia Love reflected a slight confusion. Category:African-American Latter Day Saints, like all categories by ethnicity is a non-diffusing category. That means, people should be in both Category:African-American Latter Day Saints and in Category:American Latter Day Saints, not just in the former. I mainly bring this up because I have been attacked for not understanding non-diffusing categories and so am trying to help others avoid this same problem.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:43, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

{{lds}} template[edit]

FYI - I responded here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement#Template:lds question --Trödel 19:42, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Book of Mormon template[edit]

I have added my reasons for inclusion of the Latter-day Saints Portal on this template talk page. Please discuss.--79.192.16.44 (talk) 14:52, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Opinion sought[edit]

Wouldn't mind hearing what you think here about Translation (Mormonism). I'm not clear on what the best solution would be. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:11, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Print versus electronic citation[edit]

Hi 208, it looks like we disagree on whether to cite the electronic source or the print source (with a link.) This question was discussed a couple of years ago at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources/Archive 33#Print versus online citations. I think that using the print source and keeping the link would be the best approach, but I hope you read the linked discussion and consider my approach a little more. Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 19:16, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

You haven't responded to this, so I may go back and change the citation. Would be interested in your thoughts after you read the linked discussion. Bahooka (talk) 15:42, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
I did read it, and while I don't think that conversation is conclusive, if you really are passionate about changing it back, go ahead. I was still contemplating on this issue after having read this: LaFrance, Adrienne (June 26, 2014), "A Corrected History of the Typo", The Atlantic . Toward the end of the article it has some interesting thoughts about the correction of online sources after the print version is published. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 16:01, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the Atlantic article and your understanding of my passion for including the print citation information. I guess I have seen just too many Wikipedia citations become deadlinks and virtually useless for verifiability without the additional information. I will certainly keep the convenience link to the online article, but also include the print information in case the electronic link goes away. Best, Bahooka (talk) 16:34, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Your recent contribution of Japanese-American interment camps[edit]

Your recent contribution of an internment camp topic is one of a whole series that can be made for Fort Bliss. If you were to list the history of the United States, the units, the wars, the operations quite faithfully echo the history of the country, dating back to the formation of the post. Thus, Japanese-Americans are only one of a series of internments; some that come to mind are the 18,000 Native American archaeological sites on the Fort Bliss military reservation, Hueco Tanks (an ancient dwelling place) and its proximity to the reservation, the Mexican Cession and formation of the post, the Civil War, the Salt wars and the re-instatement of the post, the Buffalo Soldiers and their part in the Indian wars and in the occupation of the Philippines, refugee camps from the Mexican revolution, which are part of reaction to the Villa expedition into Chihuahua and the subsequent formation of the Border Patrol, the buildup for World War I, the buildup for World War II, internment of American citizens of German, Italian, and Japanese ethnicity, Operation Paperclip and the technical community of the V-2 (from all of Europe and not just Germany), the recognition of the strategic location of the Pass and its railroads, and the convergence of military units from all allies of the United States (including military units of Germany, Japan, Canada, Saudi Arabia, etc.). Since the US Army is in over 120 countries, their militaries all seem to come here at some time or another. And, to state the obvious, Fort Bliss has been a combat zone more than once, with the attendant actions and decorations of its personnel, not only a peacetime post. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 06:40, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Notice of IP Change[edit]

Users previously contributing from this IP address are in the process of being migrated to a different internet gateway, which use another IP address (see 155.95.80.242 (talk · contribs)) Please do not archive or delete this notice. -- 155.95.80.242 (talk). 18:18, 22 July 2014 (UTC)