User talk:Bytebear

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Contents

Kirtland Temple[edit]

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

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

You are SOOOOOO right[edit]

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

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

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

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

I am going to look into it. If I find more difinitive rules, I will let you know. Bytebear 18:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, according to Wikipedia rules found here Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags#For_image_creators, they say "Ideally, we would like you to license your work under a "free" license — with as few restrictions as possible.", however even if you give permission to Wikipedia, if you don't sicense it as free, they will delete it. So they are slowly getting more strict. It's sad really, they are restricting a lot of content that people would be willing to share, but wikipedia wants to essentially own their content, at the same time claiming no ownership of anything. Strange. it seems like a catch 22 to me. I have yet to decide if I want to post pictures or not. Convince me. Bytebear 18:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Ccf link in PETA[edit]

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

Sorry, my bad. I didn't realize one was a web link and the other a wikilink. I have reverted. However, I copied the description of the weblink to the wikilink to make them consistant and avoid POV. -BB
By favoring their own description of themselves as opposed to a neutral and factually correct description, you are in effect being POV. You also omitted to mention the group is opposed to PETA's agenda like l0b0t did, which make it worthless in the context of the article and nothing more than publicity for CCF. Jean-Philippe 01:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree. That is why I have changed the description to the wiki page description. -BB
Yay, I'm a slow typer. I just noticed your changes, if what I read on the talk page is correct then the matter is fine. Jean-Philippe 01:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Yay!

Deletion of text at Temple (Mormonism)[edit]

Bytebear,

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Dispute at anti-Mormon[edit]

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

List of temples[edit]

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

Thanks. It's a lot better just by your efforts with the template. I did notice that the Notes label and the notes do not align when the text line wraps. -B
continuing table discussion here - I've tried that and I don't see what I can do to make it better. if you want to try stuff out - feel free to edit my my sandbox --Trödel 17:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The Original Barnstar[edit]

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


LDS church[edit]

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

I see main articles and cross articles, so the main article should mention baptism for the dead as a key belief, but have the baptism article cover all aspects of it. This is just so all information is available and so articles aren't huge.
As to early church leaders, it's fine to point out their arrests, but 1) the article is not about Joseph Smith or any other church leader and 2) their arrests were not a reason for abandoning settlements as far as I know. I am open to verifiable references that prove me wrong.
As to whether these arrests were valid or warrented should also be included in any article about them. For example, Smith was for the most part under extradition for an assasinatin atempt on Lilburn Boggs which he was later determined to be innocent. So there are two sides ot every story, and I think the editors have done a good job covering all of them. Its not just what you put in wikipedia, but where it is put. so think about where the information would be best served. History of the LDS Church seems more appropriate than an overview article, IMHO. Bytebear 22:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Byte, you will find what you seek in Hugh B. Brown's biography written by his son. If you want more info, just email me. --Storm Rider (talk) 07:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I hear you. I just am finding a lot of sup-par referencing right now, and a lot of POV being added specifically to Plural Marriage and Blacks and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Bytebear (talk) 07:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Merge proposal on Criticisms of Mormonism page[edit]

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

I did, but was not logged in, so it is probably listed as anonymous. I know this has been discussed before, but I still don't see the need for two articles. particularly one that is just a bullet list. Maybe List of Mormon Controveries? Bytebear 23:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I see no need at all for the Controversies article; it is a list, nothing more. Do you know if lists are appropriate for articles? Some of the older editors will dislike the merger, but let's let them speak for themselves. Storm Rider (talk) 02:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Are there 'controversies' sections in articles for other religions? If not then get rid of this one; if there are then I say that this one should stand as well. Duke53 | Talk 02:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Looking at the article Controversy there is a list of specific controversies, and the only specific religion mentioned is Mormonism with two links (both redirecting to Controversies regarding The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) and Jehovah's Witnesses: controversies. Other issues are more conceptual like King James Only Controversy (disambiguation) or about a specific event like George W. Bush military service controversy.
I personally think throwing all of Mormonism over the coals is a bad idea because it would be a huge article to fully explore each issue, or it becomes a basic list which isn't really an article. I think the prefered method is to include controvercial issues in main articles, or hava an article about each specific issue. I think in the LDS article, the Mountain Meadow Massacre is a good example of how it should be done. Mention the issue in NPOV and link to further information. Unfortunately, what happens is both sides of the arguement keep adding thier points and the section gets bloated. This is why I am hesitant to even put issues on the main article unless it relates directly to the issue at hand. A lot of people regard this as POV by omission, but there are several dozen articles on LDS beliefs. Combine that with articles about the LDS Movement, Mormon offshoot religions, or historical articles not related directly to the LDS church, and you have way too much information to handle on one page.
I think we should weave in any information in the "Controversies" section into the article or omit it (for example I think isses other Christians have about the Trinity is really irrelivant to the main LDS article). Currently there are three controvery articles about the LDS church that I know of: Anti-Mormon, an article about history of anti-Mormon issues and how it is presented, etc. Criticism of Mormonism which I can see getting way too big if we cover every issue in the article, and Controversies regarding The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints which is basically a list of controverial LDS issues. Bytebear 02:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

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


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

Family Section on LDS Church Page[edit]

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

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

I rewrote it like this:

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

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

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

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

Editing a quote[edit]

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

First of all, the quote is not cited correctly. The actal source is "Comprehensive History of the Church, vol. 1, page 441" which is what should be cited. Second, the emphasis is by the author of the webite, which is HUGELY POV because it's an anti-Mormon source. The reference should change and the empahsis removed. Bytebear 02:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Care to show me your version? Until then the one I displayed will have to do. Duke53 | Talk 02:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
HELLO? The website specifically points to the citation in the article. It was a quote from a speech. I don't recall BOLD being used in speeches, do you? The emphases was added by the website author, and is not part of the speech. Now, if you want to discuss it further and avoid the 3R rule, take it to the talk page. In the meantime I will see if I can find a web version of the original quote. Bytebear 02:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Do you recall inflections of voice being used for emphasis in a speech? ... BOLD = inflection when written. Do you suppose that this guy whispered the speech?Duke53 | Talk 03:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Welcome!

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

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

Ummm... what did I remove? Find the original source. Move the discussion to the LDS talk page. Bytebear 03:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I see. Thanks Leth! Bytebear 03:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Duke, please read the edit summary, it was NOT a legitimate use of that template, and I was the one who removed it. --Lethargy 03:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Issues[edit]

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

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

List of web application frameworks[edit]

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

  • Wdflake 22:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
No problem. I was freaking out, cuz I was moving some stuff around too, and noticed that sections were being moved around. I do think that .Net should be moved to the N section alphabetically though. Bytebear 22:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

November 2006 Mormon Collaboration[edit]

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

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

Peter Pan (film)[edit]

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

Thanks for the inclusion of the film link. I had no idea there was a silent version, and to have it influence Walt Disney is huge. The issue I have with just saying (film) is that it is not necessarily the earliest film that gets the non-standard naming convention, but the most likely version a user might be looking for. So if I search for "Peter Pan Film" it should most likely redirect to the Disney version as this is the most popular. Same thing for (film), In this case (film) goes to redirect as there are several films and so I have no preference. So if one of the films is going to have (film) rather than (1924 film) or (1956 film), I would give it to the Disney version. I actually like the consistancy of the date being in the title because there are several versions. I do think that "Peter Pan movie" and "Peter Pan film" should redirect to the Disney version page. Bytebear 00:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
On the other hand, one might argue that they should redirect to Hook. You can always do another disambiguous page called Peter Pan (film) that lists all the film versions, without all the other references to Peter Pan. Just a thought. Bytebear 00:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Plan of Salvation and First principles[edit]

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

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

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

temples and CJC[edit]

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

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

maps[edit]

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

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

lamp article[edit]

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

I disagree. Each article should have enough informaton to tell the reader enough about the subject for understanding. Telling them that L stands for Linux means nothing to someone who doesnt know what Linux is. So you need a section to summarize Linux, and then a link for further information. Otherwise, the article should not exist at all. Having a section on Linux is much more important than an arbitrary list of acronymns describing obscure web configurations. Bytebear 19:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
They would know that Linux is an operating system. It just seems like you want to add information just for the sake of making a major contribution to an article, not because it's needed. A link is all that's needed. Until it gets removed for good, I'm trimming out the most excess parts. ColdFusion650 16:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
How many encycolpedias or articles on here do you know that don't explain what it is they are talking about. I suppose we could have it just be one line, that says Linux, Apache, MySQL, PHP and leave it at that. Don't assume the reader knows what you are talking about just because you are familiar with the subject. I think your edits are appropriate though, but a bullet list is just not an article. Bytebear 21:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Mormon mysticism[edit]

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

Template:List LDS Temple USA East[edit]

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

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

Streisand's honorary award remark[edit]

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

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

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

LA temple[edit]

love the new LA temple image --Trödel

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

Temples of CJC[edit]

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

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

Excellent. This goes well with a project I have been working on. Take a look at Temple architecture (Latter-day Saints). I am still fleshing out the details, and have done a lot of cut-and-paste, which needs to be reworded. I also have some questions on specific styles of later temples. I see "Remote area 1", "Remote area 2" and "Remote area 3", but cannot find any reference to them other than Wikipedia. I would love to group each temple by architectural style. If you can help in any way there, I would appreciate it.
Now to your questions. I did notice that the template has a few discrepancies. I think the images should use the "Image:xxx" format which may get rid of your underscore issue. I also have seen other templates that allow you to put in feet and it generates the meters automatically. I think we can do the same thing with acres or even Hectares (never heard that one, but makes sense). I am not married to the idea of dedication vs dedication_date. I think whichever conveys the correct message to the editor. I have done some editing on rollercoasters, and their template is really convoluted, so anything we can do to fix, I say we do. The only issue is that when you make a change, you have to change 150+ pages. Since there aren't many pages using the temple template, I am ok with changes, but in the future, we should make sure that name changes are backward compatable, (i.e. keep the old name as a depricated value). Bytebear 23:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Great comments - I was thinking we could use the comparison page as a kind of checklist - when adding the {{Infobox LDS Temple}} to the individual page - put the data also in the comparison list - so we know where we are.
I totally agree re getting the discrepencies worked out now - if you want to see a real mess check out {{cite book}} or {{cite web}} and their kin where there is all kinds of extra coding to make them backwards compatible with depreciated parameters.
If we can get them all worked out now when there is only 5 that have the Infobox that would be great - plus I can do quick S&R on the list pages to get them matching (I have a text editor that does S&R with regular expressions (from Funduc) so it won't be too hard as long as they are all on the same page.
I'll put a list of issues on the page I referenced above and then what it looks like we have agreed on. feel free to wiki edit away.
Finally, what do you think about including extra data in the different lists - I see pros and cons - pro - just copy and past the infobox data to the different lists without modfiying them would be easy - just change the template name. con - makes the page have a lot of lines that aren't needed and may confuse people who come later and edit. ... --Trödel 23:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I think extra data is fine for the list template, even if it isn't displayed. If we change our minds later, it will be easier to handle. We may even want to see about doing some kind of include of the data from the temple page. Something like this { { Template talk: { { TEMPLEPAGENAME } } /Data } }. Then each page including the temple page itself just includes the same data. I think it's something worth experimenting with. Bytebear 23:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I have thought about that before (and include a little {edit} link to edit the data from any of the uses (temple page, or the 3 list pages). A couple things it would have to be stored outside the article space - ie it can't be TEMPLEPAGENAME/data but it could be Talk:TEMPLEPAGENAME/data or Template:Infobox LDS Temple/TEMPLEPAGENAME or something like that. I think the general use of this kind of stuff is limited but that the template space has been used for it rather than talk space. We should ask COGDEN as he has made subpages in the template page (and he is the one that fixed my early mistake of putting an information page in the article space). I'll review your edits later tonight and see if I can help. --Trödel 23:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I am ok with edit links to the data, as it does get confusing where the data actually lives. I have found that if you create a template with a heading, the Edit link goes to the template which is pretty cool. I did some experiments (which I got chastized for - see below), and they didn't work, so I am up for suggestions. I like the idea of having one set of data that several templates can incorporate. I just don't know how to do that technically. Bytebear 23:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
sounds good - best to experimet with {{X2}} or other sandboxes before creating new pages - I'll go delete the page you created in the template space unless you object. --Trödel 23:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete away. Hopefully we can find the right technical solution (or live with mutliple versions of data). Bytebear 23:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Template:Los Angeles California Temple‎[edit]

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

It was an experiment. It didn't work. Feel free to delete. My bad. Bytebear 23:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I was attempting to use data in several templates, so the data wouldn't be duplicated. Is there a way to do that? Bytebear 23:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, the thing is that it looks to me like what you were trying to do is to create a template to be used for one article, that's not what Templates are for. You should create an infobox in the article then reproduce that in other articles. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
There already are two templates using the same data. One is for an infobox, and the other for a tabulated list. In fact there are several tabulated lists listing different aspects of each building. I was hoping to define the infobox in one place, the list in another, and have a third template that just contained the data that could be shared amongst the two templates. Bytebear 00:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
FYI, User talk:Ligulem#Solution? was able to provide me with a potential solution --Trödel 17:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
It looks like a viable solution. Test it out, and let's decide on a naming convention and standard. Bytebear 17:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
That does look like it will work (and that is very cool), but it's sad that it's such a hack. There should be a more generic way to configure a data source. The Comparative list, the regular list, the geographic list and the individual article InfoBoxes should all come from a single source of data. - Bhludzin 20:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I found this on another template:


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

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

Social Activist[edit]

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

Great work on Temple Architecture (Latter-day Saints) and the geograhic images[edit]

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


Sean Wolfington[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Using a standard data set for the temples[edit]

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

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

Nauvoo Temple Charts[edit]

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

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

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

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

A request from Sean Wolfington[edit]

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

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

Thank you.[edit]

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

Ogden temple[edit]

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

Disney templates[edit]

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

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

Your opinion please[edit]

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

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

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

Some editors are better than others. Being objective is better than subjective, because we all have our opinions. The best approace is to require references. Then they cannot argue their POV, but only argue the references. Bytebear 05:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
It seems you didn't feel the love on Talk:Fox News Channel, so I just wanted to extend a welcome to our little corner of Wikihell. The only article I've found more contentious is George W. Bush, for obvious reasons, but it's always interesting. Thanks for your opinion on the situation. I have responded on the talk page. AuburnPilottalk 05:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I wouldn't have taken notice, but I was invited in. There are plenty of controveries to go around, religion and politics being the top of the list. I am not for censorship, but I think there is a time and place for everything, which is how I approach this particular issue. Bytebear 05:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

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

Temple Maps[edit]

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

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

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

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

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Temple of Peril Backards.jpg)[edit]

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

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

Orphaned fair use image (Image:The cat and the canary.jpg)[edit]

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

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

Despair[edit]

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

I am sorry you think I am irrational, which is the only conclusion I can come to. I have not been discussion a specific change, but an overall tone, which I think is more important. Bytebear 01:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
? There are other conclusions. When I complain that you make complexity look like a blob that eats simplicity and destroys meaning, leaving no one sure of what we're talking about, it's not a good idea to say "surrender to it". That's all I'm saying. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 01:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I think you do need a break. You obviously do not understand my position. Bytebear 01:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid that I do understand; but in the hopes that I don't, I need the feeling to wear off. Best regards. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 02:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Email[edit]

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

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

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

Template:Christianity[edit]

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

no problem. I am prepared to discuss the issue. I don't want this to become a debate. I just feel that the list of groups that are "Christian" was lacking and a bit POV toward trinitarians and traditionalists. Bytebear 07:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I already explained on Template_talk:Christianity at ":23, 21 February 2007" why there is going to be a certain unavoidable bias towards groups with significant early influence and/or long continuous institutional histories. These groups do not all fall within the traditional "orthodox" mainstream of Christianity -- the groups of "Oriental Orthodoxy" or "Syrian Christianity" are Monophysite, or rather non-Chalcedonian, etc. Meanwhile:
1) Many might find it somewhat grotesque if the "Disciples of Christ" were mentioned on the template, but the Armenian church or the Nestorians (which have far more significance in the overall history of Christianity) were not mentioned on the template (for example).
2) The template needs to be continuously monitored so that it does not get too tall, and there needs to be some discussion and agreement about what is to be deleted before a whole new big section of links is added. AnonMoos 15:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
The problem is, unavoidable bias is pure POV, and unfortunately, has no place on Wikipedia. The template is not about "traditional Christianity" and if you want to make one that is, go for it. This template is about Christianity and should include all major Christian groups including ones that traditionalists find them "grotesque". finding something grotesque is another example of pure POV. I think if you are concerned about it becoming too tall, drop some of the less important links. Many of the links under "Bible" for example are more about the doctrines of Christianity and not about the Bible specifically. For example, how do the 10 commandments specifically fit in with Christianity. They are much more broad than that. It seems to me the excuses that it is too tall is just to cover up a POV. Bytebear 17:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Dude, you're completely misunderstanding what I'm saying. I didn't remotely say anything resmbling an assertion that "non-orthodox" beliefs of Restorationist groups are grotesque. What I observed is that, though I'm sure many individual members of the Disciples of Christ are ernestly pious individuals who strive to do right, it would be ludicrous to claim that, collectively as a group, the Disciples of Christ have remotely the same importance in the overall history of WORLD Christianity over the last 1900+ years that say Nestorians or Coptic Christians have had. Furthermore, it might be said that taking a global view of the history of world Christianity over two thousand years is much less "POV" than focusing on the English-speaking world of the last 200 years (as you seem to do). AnonMoos 17:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
P.S. Neither Nestorian nor Coptic Christianity is "orthodox" in the traditional Catholic / Eastern Orthodox / conservative Protestant sense. AnonMoos 17:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


Dude, you aren't getting it. The length of the infobox is reasonable. It is considerably shorter than the Judaism infobox which has been cited as a good quality infobox. Second, you really need to go to adherents.com and look up some statistics. LDS and JWs for example are world religions and just as important as any other religious group. And many protestant movements also started only a few hundred years ago. Before you go judging these "fringe" movements, I would go through the website I mentioned and see what the true demographics on Christianity are. Do not follow your pastor, follow the facts. Wikipedia is about facts. Bytebear 19:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't have a "pastor" -- you probably envision me as someone completely different than I actually am. However, in the GLOBAL perspective of Christian WORLD history of the last TWO-THOUSAND years (as opposed to the English-speaking Christianity of the last 200 years), it's pretty indisputable that Nestorians and Coptic-Ethiopian Christians (among some other groups that could be named) are more historically important/influential than the Disciples of Christ (among other groups which you keep attempting to add to the template) -- why do you refuse to acknowledge this very basic and not very controversial point? AnonMoos 21:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Because the plain and simple truth is that it is extremely POV to exclude at least two of the 10 largest Christian religions, specifically LDS and Jehovah's Witnesses. There is rumor that the LDS Church is the second richest church next to the Catholics. How can you say they are not significant? Also, as far as the world stage, did you even look at the data on Adherents.com? Here is a sample (all data taken from Adherents.com):

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

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


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

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

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


Greg Bear's List of History's Major Prophets

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

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

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


Famous Contemporary Religious Leaders

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is this enough evidence for you?

Bytebear 02:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

It's certainly an accumulation of data -- however, not one single part of it addresses the actual question at issue -- namely, why the Disciples of Christ should be considered more important than the Nestorians in the global perspective of Christian world history over the last two thousand years (as opposed to the English-speaking Christianity of the last 200 years). AnonMoos 13:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't know enough about Desciples of Christ to make a judgement, and I never said to exclude Nestorians. All I know is Desciples of Christ were mentioned in the Restorationism page, and since the list was of Restorationists, I included them. Bytebear 18:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
If you had throught things through a little bit beforehand (instead of just mechanically cribbing a list of groups from the Restorationism page, without considering the strength of the individual claims of each separate group to be included on the Christianity template), then we might have all have been spared some of the unpleasant discussions of the past few days. AnonMoos 20:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me? I thought one of the key dictates of Wikipedia is to be bold, and I gave ample, well thought out evidence to the strengths of these groups and to my claims. You are also ignoring another edict of Wikipedia: Assume Good Faith. Bytebear 21:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure you had "good faith" -- you just didn't think things through, and then did not respond well to other people when they pointed out that you hadn't thought things through. AnonMoos 21:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

A Map Error[edit]

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

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

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

Image:Mickey_50_Ears.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

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

Nav template[edit]

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

I sent you an e-mail.......[edit]

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

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

Please respond on my talk page. OfForByThePeople

Fair use rationale for Image:Temple_of_Peril_Backards_French.gif[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

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

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

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

Image:States_of_grace.jpg[edit]

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

Image:Grad_nite_73.JPG[edit]

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

Your edits to Christian symbolism[edit]

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

Go ahead and make edits, but it was very prominant at some point in Christian history and should be included in the article. I just grabbed the Christian section from the Pentagram artivle. Seemed appropriate to me. Bytebear 23:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
No, it was not "very prominant[sic] at some point in Christian history" -- under the name of the Pentalpha, it was basically an abstract conceptual toy of a few medieval intellectuals. Later, beginning in the Renaissance, it received greater prominence, but was also then used in a much less purely religious way.
If it really were a prominent Christian symbol, then it would have been used as such, and many examples of it would be found in old Church ornamentation and religious art -- but they don't seem to be. I'm the main author of an article (Shield of the Trinity) about a Christian symbol which I freely admit is a somewhat minor one (not "prominant"), and yet I have many more references and links to its use in traditional church decoration and religious art than is contained in the Pentagram article -- and I doubt that's an accident. AnonMoos 08:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
from your home page, and your prominance on the Shield of the Trinity, which I have never heard of, it is clear to me that you have an agenda. Go right ahead taking ownership of your pet pages, but remember that Wikipedia is not owned by you or me, but is a collaborative effort, and if I want to improve an article or change the direction which you do not like, tough beans. It's not yours to own. The Cross, and the Crucifix has much more prominance than the Shield of which you are so fond of, and as such, the article has undue weight. It needs to be balanced, and you are clearly not the man for the job. Bytebear 19:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

STOP USING INFLAMMATORY EDIT SUMMARIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!![edit]

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

You called my edit nonsesnse, I call you bias and pushing a POV, although I an trying very hard to assume good faith. You seem to be doing the opposite. If the Pentagram is not a part of Christian symbolism, then why does the former have a section on the latter. Do you have evidence that this is nonsense? Because I see a lot of references to it being a fact. Do not revert again, and stop whining. It was a significant part of Christian history, and I cannot see why you do not want the uninformed reader to know about it's history, other than your own bias against the symbol, which is stupid because only the uninformed think it is satanic. I can only assume this is your motivation for removing pertinant information, and lambasting me for doing nothing than puting pertinant information about Christian symbols on the page about Christian symbols. Bytebear 23:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Dude, the material as it is found in the Pentagram article may have a very valid and helpful role within the Pentagram article, but given the current scope and purpose of the "Christian symbolism" article, it's nonsense to include it in the "Christian symbolism" article.
As the article has been developed over the course of several years, it is NOT a compendium of the details of the meaning of a whole long list of Christian symbols. You might want it to be that, but it has not been that, and you trying to unilaterally alter the basic nature and focus of the article without even discussing anything on the talk page first was not a particularly constructive maneuver, and it did not create a positive foundation for future cooperative collaboration. (Nor did putting an irrelevant Satanism symbol on a Christian symbolism page, as you did in your initial edits.)
To try to spell things out in words of one syllable or less, there are a number of valid articles in the category Category:Christian symbols, but that doesn't mean that all the text in each and every one of those articles should be moved into article Christian symbolism. The Christian symbolism article has been reserved for general discussions which throw light on the overall nature of the use of symbols by Christians. The Pentagram is a much less "prominant" Christian symbol than you seem to believe, but even if this were less true, why should there be a section on the Pentagram in article Christian symbolism when there's no section on the Cross in and of itself -- which is indisputably the most prominent symbol of all? AnonMoos 08:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Friendly advice from an outsider[edit]

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

Hard to do when you get yelled out on your own talk page. and for what? Copying from one article to another specifically related material? Crazy. Bytebear 00:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
For deliberately and intentionally using inflammatory edit summaries, and mischaracterizing as "vandalism"[sic] something which you know very well is not "vandalism"[sic], apparently for the sole and exclusive purpose of causing aggravations and stirring up trouble. AnonMoos 07:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
paersonal attacks, like you are doing now are not acceptable on Wikipedia. Not everyone spell checks, and when you type 120 words a minute, it's easy to miss a letter or two. Get over it. Bytebear 19:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Template:List LDS Temple USA West[edit]

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

What is good for the goose is good for the gander[edit]

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

As you say, there are many reasons for exclusion of this content. Hypocracy is rampant, and I am actually considering working on Wikiepdia policy and guidelines so this kind of blatant POV cannot be justified by hiding under the shield of WP:NPA. We really need to come to a consensus. I have yet to hear one single compelling argument for the inclusion of this material. I think we need to start asking for justification. Thanks for the support. Bytebear 19:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Might be time for an RfC. Some editors clearly are using a personal bias and one continues to break the spirit of notability. Arzel 14:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree. we don't have enough people looking at this issues. We also need to look at how other articles have handled the situation. Bytebear 16:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

"Doctor" Philastus Hurlbut[edit]

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

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

Christianity article[edit]

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

Image:77245_April2006Ensign_tn.jpg[edit]

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

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Peterpanaudiobookcover.jpg)[edit]

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

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

Disambiguation issue[edit]

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

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

Speedy deletion of Gateway One[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

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

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

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

Soarin' Over California[edit]

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

Manti-1999.jpg[edit]

Hello,

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

Spider (solitaire)[edit]

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

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

No WP:POINT involved[edit]

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

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

Hello[edit]

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

Hi Carl, nice to meet you. I looked on your talk page as well, and congratulations on your baptism in the Catholic faith. My partner was raised Catholic, and in fact, his brother was just baptised (along with his wife) Catholic this year. It's a long story as to why they were raised in different faiths. I was raised a Latter-day Saint, and hold an affinity to them, but I am not practicing. I do particularly love the symbolic architecture of LDS temples (as you probably guessed). I do know their doctrines well, but have a foot in other theologies here and there.
That said, to answer your question, Mormons consider themselves Monotheistic. Although they define God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost as three separate beings, they are still one God. Mormons call this union the Godhead, rather than trinity, although historically, trinity has been used in rare cases. Honestly, the theology is not that different than the trinity in theory, but semantics get in the way. That and the fact that Mormonism explicitely define God the Father and the Son as existing in a phyiscial manifestation. But when pressed, most Christians would agree that Jesus was physically resurrected and has a body of flesh and bone. So when I read the comment on the Christianity talk page about monotheism, I did think of Mormonism, and how the beliefs are often misunderstood, and whether it is called the Trinity or the Godhead, it still is monotheism. It is also why I htink an article like Monotheism in Christianity would be interesting, because there are various interpretations of what that means. Bytebear 21:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the congratulations, and it is nice to meet you too. Thank you for helping to clear that up for me. And I have never created an article that was more than a stub, but after next Thursday, when my finals are done, I'd be willing to try n write up some stuff and maybe we can work on it,expand it into a good-sized article together. Regards. Carl.bunderson (talk) 22:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Plural marriage[edit]

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

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

I have already requested that the article be locked. I an considering the other editor's actions vandalism. Please review his edits, and you will see extreme POV edits that require reversions. Bytebear (talk) 06:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm the admin responding to your protect request. You both need to back off right now. The other guy is being a lot sneakier with his edit summaries but you both are warring here - Alison 06:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:77245 April2006Ensign tn.jpg)[edit]

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

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

Bringing Notability Requirements to Article Content[edit]

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

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

LDS Holy of Holies[edit]

Hi Bytebear,

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

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

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

peta talk[edit]

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

I don't want to start a revert war over a moronic comment on a talk page, so i'll defer to you on this one. But, I think that doing so just encourages such behaviour in the future, I disagree with you removing comments on talk pages for the reasons in wp:talk. Have a nice day. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 00:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I think anybody who kills any animal is evil (PETA included), but that's completely irrelevant, so is this comment. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 00:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm fine either way on this. I'd rather see discussion, even if pointless, than an editing war. It probably makes more sense to reply to a comment like this with references explaining Wiki POV/NPOV, than I did, since the talk comment indicates the poster doesn't get it.Bob98133 (talk) 01:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Strangite joke[edit]

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

Actually, I knew it was a joke, and was just giving you a hard time. I actually thought Luke was the one who over reacted. No worries.
It has been a long time since a prophet has died, and it reminds me of when Spencer W. Kimball died, as I was about 10, and was the only president I knew. This will be an emotional time for the LDS faith. For LDS, it is akin to the Pope dying, without the anticipation and politicing for a successor. The successor will be Thomas S. Monson, and it won't come as a shock to anyone. In fact, if it isn't Monson, it would be the fist time, the senior apostle hasn't been called as president ever. This is certainly a time to shore up the articles relating to presidential succession. Bytebear (talk) 04:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Mormonism comment[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ok, I am going to respond so that you can understand how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia is about facts. The fact is "adherents to Mormonism claim that the movement is a restoration of the earliest Christian and Judaic doctrines" You retort by saing, "because they say so?" Yes, because they say so. That is what "claim" means.
Second, Orthodoxy is not Christianity. It is a subset of Christianity. As such, adherents of Orthodoxy do not make the rules for who is and who isn't Christian. Neither do evangelicals, baptists, Catholics, Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons, or anyone else.
The Trinity may be the core of Orthodoxy, but not the core of CHristianity, particularly since the term "Trinity" is not in the bible, and was not a part of Christianity until around 400 AD.
If you find a reference that says 52% of Mormons belive polygamny is ok, then go ahead and put it in the appropriate article. But it is not appropriate to say that 52% of Catholics believe Mormons should practice polygamny. It just doesn't matter what the Catholics think. Similarly it doesn't matter what you think about Mormons.
The fact is, I can give you hundreds of references by Mormons that says they are Christians. I can give you hundreds more by non-Mormons that says the same thing. I can find a few very biased anti-Mormon groups who believe Mormonism isn't Christian, but they are a irrelivant to every article except perhaps the Christianity and Mormonism article.
The organized effort, it is established by Wikipedia to avoid bias edits, like yours. It's called a neutral point of view. And before you judge too harsly, know that not everyone who edits pages on Mormonism is a Mormon. Honestly, I think you should invite the missionaries to your home so you can hear about the church first hand. Clearly you have some bigotry to get over. Bytebear (talk) 01:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:List LDS Temple California[edit]

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

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

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

Smile!!![edit]

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

BOR[edit]

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

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

It's a ridiculous situation. They are using MM to validate their soapboxing, which I think is the best argument against their behavior. And you are correct, finding one obscure reference that quotes MM on the issue does not valiate something as notable. Of course, I am accused of being a "secret supporter" of whoever is being attacked, which is not the case. I just think putting up such trivial issues about someone is just silly. Imagine if we had every controversial thing about Abraham Lincoln stated, for example. He certainly had his detractors who were slinging mud harder and further than we see here, and he said some very racist things, by today's standards. Of course, if I bring up this example, I will be told this is not that article, and they are two separate issues. I guess people refuse to see the forest for the trees. Bytebear (talk) 16:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I think some people only see "Their" trees in the forrest. My initial reason for editing was to try and remove pointless criticism from several articles from both the left and the right. Removal from the left is relatively easy...removal from the right is like pulling teeth, and I have been accused several times of trying to "scrub" critical information. What they fail to realize is, that by using sources like MM to promote MM agenda within WP, the whole project of WP fails. Instead of a truly neutral presentation you get the biased form from the side that screams the loudest. Just look at the Gibson article. Granted, he says some stupid things, and has some off-base opinions, but just try to turn that into a neutral article. The WP policies of WP:V and WP:RS and notability all but guarentee that it will remain a biased article of undue weight. The solution presented by Gibson haters is to add additional content, unfortunately, good news, or nice news is simply not news. Ironically, WP turns into an extreme version of actual news, which is something those on the far left rail against FNC (sensationalism versus actual news). Welcome to gossipedia. Arzel (talk) 02:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Before the days of Google search, verifiability was much more strict. You had to have a news organization of some reputability report on things. Now even the mainstream media will pick up on useless fluff. I like to use the example of Abraham Lincoln who said some pretty racist things in his time, but in context, they are not really important, and certainly not in the character and history of the man. The same goes for Bill O'Reilly, Mel Gibson, and everyone else. In 100 years, they will not be known for such trivialities. That is unless Wikipedia becomes the basis for historical accuracy. I wonder how long it will take before those racist quotes wind themselves into the Lincoln article. Bytebear (talk) 02:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Solitaire Page Links - Pyramid, others[edit]

Bytebear, I appreciate your efforts on the Spider Solitaire page to keep the 2 to 4 external links on the page. As stated and discussed there, they are clearly within the WP:EL guidelines and are useful to the Wikipedia readers. However I'd like to ask for your help in restoring these valid links on other Solitaire pages. User 2005 has also been removing these valid links on a few other Solitaire pages, despite objections. I have suggested these links be restored on the Talk:Pyramid (solitaire) page. I would really appreciate it if you could visit that page and voice your comments there as well as perhaps restoring the links that are indeed valid.

Thanks.Sembiance (talk) 13:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

California photo requests now by County[edit]

I saw your name at Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Photographers. I just spent the past few days moving all the California photo requests into County categories to make it easier for photographers to locate requests in the locations where they take photos. Please consider monitoring and adding your name to the list at Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Los Angeles County, California as well as the other counties in So. Cal. GregManninLB (talk) 21:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Concerning your Fox News lead proposal[edit]

You have suggested, ""Fox News Channel has a reputation for being conservative. Whether this label is warranted is continually under dispute," and a few people have agreed. However, why be so intentionally vague about what the other sourced POV is? To say the accusation that Fox is conservatively biased is "under dispute" could mean anything from 'others believe Fox News coverage is balanced' to 'others believe Fox News coverage is liberal', and we can't assume the reader has any familiarity with Fox. The sources report specifically on Fox News being seen as balanced or centrist by independent statistical observers, average news watchers, and politicians (even liberal democrats). I don't understand why we should be vague about exactly what the other POV is, especially since the critical POV is explicitly stated.

I think we're very close to a large majority consensus on finally fixing the wording in the lead to theNobleSith's suggestion, "Some observers of the channel say that Fox News promotes conservative political positions,[3][4] while others profess that Fox News engages in politically balanced news reporting. [5][6][8] FNC denies allegations of bias in its reporting.[10]" If we could come to agree on that I think it would pretty much seal a large majority and end this dispute for good. Jsn9333 (talk) 18:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I chose those words because the Lead is not meant to be comprehensive, and as such, putting the whole detail in it is inappropriate. Second, the two statements are facts, and not in question. The text I propose does not say Fox is conservative, or that that is even a fact, but even you must agree to the truth of the statements I propose. Bytebear (talk) 05:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
The wording may be okay, but this must be located in another paragraph further down in the article. We can use some other studies to add in the Liberal Bias of MSNBC, CNN, ABC, & CBS into the first paragraph of each articles also.24.27.151.226 (talk) 05:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

LDSaffiliation template[edit]

I wasn't sure at first about this template, but a few of these articles need some help to become npov. I thought shining a light on them might help make that happen. I'm open to other suggestions though. --TrustTruth (talk) 14:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Well it's only got a few articles, so it might be better as an infobox rather than a wide screen template. It could also be incorporated into the existing LDS template(s). Bytebear (talk) 18:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

"these guys"[edit]

Certainly did not include you. Though I think your misstatements and misrepresentations are calculated, I do not believe you troll. Sorry if you felt caught in the crossfire; I will say so publicly if you wish. Thanks. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I just wasn't sure. And no, I just want things to be presented in a neutral manner, and when I see a push to one POV, I tend to lean the other way. It's pretty obvious you think FNC is bias, and you want to present that, but we can't present our own ideas, just what the facts tell us. So, I will continue to push back when I feel things are out of balance. Don't take offense, or take it personally. If you think I have made misstatements or misrepresented anything, please be specific and let me know where you feel I have erred. Bytebear (talk) 04:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
You know I always do.  ;-) I think the major breakdown here is that you think WP:UNDUE means all arguments must be presented equally. In actuality, WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV mandate that controversies be presented with weight proportional to their magnitude. In this particular case, there is massively more evidence of the bias controversy then there is belief that they are balanced. Likewise, I'm not trying to say FNC is biased -- I am pointing out that the controversy over their perceived bias (right or wrong) is a central issue surrounding FNC's identity. There are not sources to support the assertion that centrist viewpoint is of equal weight with controversy viewpoint, and as such it does not meet the burden of inclusion put forth in WP:LEAD. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your comments[edit]

In case you were unaware, usually we don't call the person provoked into explaining the same point over and over by an editor who clearly understands it and choses to reply as if they don't with what amounts to nonsense, a troll. Its usually the provoking editor who has nothing of substance to add or no real question to pose who is considered so. Of course, like I said on my talk page, you are welcome to your opinion. Just to clarify, however, I didn't call any editor a troll on the entry talk page, I simply said I didn't want to feed him anymore. I should also add that it is impolite to warn someone against making personal attacks when none have been made to date. Cheers.PelleSmith (talk) 17:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Please, we all know what you meant by your comment. The behavior I see is a verifiable source that you do not like, and major atempts by you to argue against its use. Bytebear (talk) 17:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Bytebear, I believe you are assuming far too much good faith with some of our newer contributors at FNC. That said, I would appreciate if you'd check out my last comment within the proposed solution section. If you agree with my last proposal, an edit can be made. - auburnpilot talk 18:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Possibly. But I haven't seen personal attacks from other editors. The discussion about that references is really getting tiresome. I am amazed at the creativity of some of the arguments. Bytebear (talk) 18:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, the main reason I've begun completely ignoring anything posted by Jsn9333 is that I tired of his word games and continued attacks and attempts to discredit Blaxthos; it simply degrades attempts at resolution and weakens any real argument he may have. Regardless, thanks for the response to my proposal. Hopefully things can move forward from there (the current discussion is far from helpful). - auburnpilot talk 18:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I also tend to ignore Jsn, but mainly because he is so long winded and tends to hurt his case more than helps it. If he were brief and to the point, he would have better success, as I do think, at the root, his arguments have merit. But it really has become a pissing match between the various editors. Bytebear (talk) 18:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Late note[edit]

I know this is a month late, and I am glad things have gotten a lot smoother (for everyone!), but please avoid canvassing to try and influence consensus. I hope this doesn't offend or otherwise stir up more drama; it's only intended as a friendly reminder. Thanks. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello Bytebear. Blaxthos is pushing his Liberal POV into the introduction to FoxNews. I have removed the POV bias. It is not relevant to the article's opening paragraph. Please respond on the FoxNews talk page24.27.151.226 (talk) 07:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

LDS article[edit]

In response to your somewhat irritating note -- My mantra: Almost every good faith edit is valuable. Research, verify, rewrite --------------- but don't delete! I have been around the LDS project/articles for a long time. You can check the quality of my edits there and in other places. I generally will not remove good faith edits -- but I may move them, modify them, verify them, and correct them. I will, more than likely, revert when I see others delete without making similar efforts. As for this one ------ "king" is accurate in several senses, even though there are errors in this wording. JSmith had recently announced the priesthood concept of an "eternal kingship" and the oppposition newspaper took full advantage of the related political fallout. I agree that the topic is better covered in other articles -- but in my opinion there is no reason that a condensation of the edit, even a sentence, could not have been retained. WBardwin (talk) 02:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Disneyland Park (Anaheim)[edit]

Good work on Disneyland Park (Anaheim) to avoid the need for a {{fact}} tag... :) Tiggerjay (talk) 02:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Presley and Mormonism[edit]

Hello, Bytebear. I saw your recent edit and wondered if it was appropriate, given that the main article has avoided expounding on Presley's many different spiritual explorations, because it would make the article very long. It now gives undue weight to Mormonism. It would be better too if a neutral reliable source could be cited to back up the claims, but I cannot find a mention in the mainstream biogs, like Guralnick, Hopkins, etc. Maybe this would be worth discussing on the Elvis talkpage? Rikstar (talk) 08:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I thought of that, but since there was already an expounding n Presley's faith search, so why exclude Mormonism? Wikipedia is about more information, not less. It is verifiable, and factual that Presley did look into Mormonism. In fact, I left out some things, like a quote saying, "Please God, Lisa needs this religion", or that some say that Presley actually had a date set for baptism shortly before his death. No, the information is factual and verifiable, and if you feel it gives undue weight to Mormonism, find verifiable sources to even things out. Bytebear (talk) 21:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Porter Barry[edit]

Seems someone is trying to do a piece on Porter Barry, producer of The O'Reilly Factor of FOX news. Please look at the Porter Barry Wikipedia article. Thanks. Bebestbe (talk) 16:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Mormonism Discussion[edit]

It is just as much the other memberss fault for my losing my "cool" on the topic as it is my own fault. The people pushed me until I blew up. But of course, secular websites would not recognize that.

Quote from someone I discussed this with...

Q: Are they not just as much at fault for my yelling/cursing as I am? Because I couldn't control myself, I know I am worse than they, but are they not also at fault because they pushed me until I go so upset?

A: While I agree with you on this, this is not the way the mods will see it, wherever you are posting or having this debate. They will only see you as highly "reactive" to their "innocent" questions.

Q: How should I react when I see Mormons telling people things like that? (that Mormonism is Christian according to seculars and Mormons) A: It's part of the Mormons' new PR campaign--claiming to be Christian so people won't realize just how weird they are. Of course, Mormons aren't Christians. And, if they tell this lie to others in your presence, you should consider speaking up (after first talking with your spiritual father about this--since getting into arguments, even over truth, might well be detrimental to your spiritual life.) The fact that all their support comes from themselves and the easily confused secular world is quite telling.

I'm very aware of Mormons, there are many of them where I live, and there are many of their "Holy Sites" as well... I know good Mormons that would never try to classify themselves as Christians because they realize the fact that more than 90% of Christians regard them as non-Christian. And some of them are even RLDS.

I gave up simply because it is much better for me to quit arguing with people that refuse to listen to reason and facts. Mormons are not Christian, and are polytheists. Not only this, but they also have nothing in common with our Lord and God Jesus Christ or his teachings. As one advised me to say... Talk to the Creed because the hand ain't listening... (joke) --KCMODevin (talk) 01:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Please don't blame others for your outbursts. No one else was using such language. And it doesn't bode well for you as a Christian. If truly "by their fruits" then the Mormons are far more Christian than you have been. As to mormon belief, you simply do not know enough to make statements like the polytheism crack. it simply isn't true. I would recommend going to LDS.ORG and reading up on the church. If you have questions, I will be happy to answer them, but as it stands, you are simply sounding ignorant, and I don't mean that to be an insult, but it really shows you don't know Mormonism. But I and others can help if you are willing to learn. But you will never get anywhere screaming at people. Bytebear (talk) 04:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Nine Ways of Participating in Another's Sin: By Counsel; By Command; By Consent; By Provocation; By praise or flattery; By concealement; By partaking; By silence; By defense of the sin committed.

Yes I do know about Mormonism, as we have a book of Mormon, and i've read plenty about their theology. It doesn't really matter what many lax and modern Mormons believe, just as it doesn't really matter what many modern and lax Christians believe as they don't often have enough theological knowledge to know the facts about their faith. (it isn't that they are bad, they just don't know enough) Mormons believe in Jesus as a created being that is a god, and they believe in the Father as the God but who procreated with Mary to create Jesus. They also believe that humans can become gods themselves, sometimes they go as far as to say we become gods of planets. Mormons reject scripture and claim to have a new revelation and a restoration of what was true. This is exactly the same as Islam with rejects scripture and claims it's scripture is better, more accurate and a revelation/restoration. To be Christian, you HAVE to accept the Gospel, Epistles as well as the Old Testament Scriptures. Mormons believe in several places Christ could return to, whereas we know from scripture that place will be Jerusalem, and not Independence, Salt Lake City or any other location. In the course of the day, I could easily go to your Garden of Eden, your former one mile square town, your leader's jail, one of the temple returning sites of Christ... Etc... (yet we know the Garden no longer exists, and Christ will return to Jerusalem according to the scriptures) Mormons also believe/accept polygamy even if they don't always practice it.

I could go on and on. I know plenty about Mormonism, as I've said, there are Mormons all over the area where I live. Most aren't strict Mormons that accept original beliefs. But the fact remains that original Mormonism and actual Mormonism teaches these thing. According to yourselves, since Smith had this new revelation and is more correct, then none of you should have ever diverted from his teachings.

I must also mention that Mormonism cannot be heretical, because in Christianity, in order to be heretical, you have to be Christian to begin with, and Mormons are not considered Christian by Christians themselves.

Also, Mormonism is traditionally classified as a cult, not because it came from Christianity (which it didn't), but because of this:

Additionally, a "cult" is defined by group behaviour: a. mind control b. "new" revelation which no one is allowed to question c. isolation of members d. non-historical beliefs and practices that seemingly appear out of nowhere e. "magical" thinking ...the list goes on....From a secular point of view, Mormonism is defined as a cult for these reasons. Secularists could care less about what the Mormons teach theologically. They care about the mind-control, the isolation of members, the forced "polygamy" in some cases, etc....

Also, this is addressing the original discussion about Baptists, Catholics, etc... Because some person (who obviously doesn't know much about Christianity) claimed that Baptists believe Catholics to be a cult or heretics.

Their logic here is faulty at best. Firstly, no one ever argues that Catholicism is a cult, because : a) Catholicism has a verifiable, historical claim to Christian, Apostolic origins b) Catholicism doesn't have the ear marks of a cult, i.e. secret handshakes, charismatic qualities, and frankly, weird and untenable rituals that have no basis in Christian theology.

From the (Eastern) Orthodox point of view, Baptists are not a cult because they don't have any weird rituals and mind-control either, but they are also Trinitarians. We view them as being in error, and as being separated from us at best. But we do not go around calling Baptists heretics because a) they are Trinitarian b) Protestantism is a reaction to Roman Catholicism . The Baptist movement came about due to some legitimate feelings/reactions against Catholic abuse, not because someone had a "new" revelation about the "restored" gospel c) Baptists do not claim to be the "one true" Church founded by Jesus Christ

I know about Mormonism, and so do the Christians around me. Mormonism is not a part of Christianity, not even a part of non-trinitarian Christianity because of it's beliefs other than just about the Trinity. --KCMODevin (talk) 11:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

No, you really don't know about Mormonism. You do know a lot about what Christians teach about Mormonism but it is not accurate. I listed your concerns, and will address them each individually.
  • Jesus was a created being. Yes, in a sense, he was created spiritually by the Father, just as Mary created in her womb his body. But he was always God according to LDS belief, and he was the creator of the heavens and Earth (Note that Heavens does not mean heaven, as that existed prior to the creation, or how did the "sons of God" (other created spirits) rejoice ad the foundation of the world (Job 38:7, Num. 16: 22), so you see LDS belief on the pre-mortal existence of man is founded in Bible verse. Jesus is the son of God, and just as my father and mother created me, God created him.
  • God procreated with Mary. This is simply not true, and I will uses LDS scripture to show. Read 1 Nephi. 11:13,15,18,20 which says in part "And I looked and beheld the virgin again, bearing a child in her arms." then read 2 Ne. 17:14 which says "Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and shall bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." and then Alma 7: 10 "she being a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed and conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost, and bring forth a son, yea, even the Son of God." So you see the Book of Mormon says in three separate places that Mary was a virgin. Sorry, you have simply misunderstood the words of men, words that are not doctrine, but you ignore the Book of Mormon which is scripture.
  • Humans can become gods (gods of planets): Well only non-Mormons say we get a planet. That is simply not biblical. But I will give you some verses to ponder:
Gen. 1: 26 (Moses 2: 26) let them have dominion.
Gen. 3: 22 (Moses 4: 28) man is become as one of us.
Lev. 19: 2 (1 Pet. 1: 16) be holy: for I . . . am holy.
Ps. 8: 5 thou hast made him a little lower than the angels.
Ps. 8: 6 madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands.
Ps. 82: 6 ye are gods, and all of you are children of the most High.
Matt. 5: 48 (3 Ne. 12: 48) Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father.
Luke 24: 39 spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
John 10: 34 (Ps. 82: 1-8; D&C 76: 58) Is it not written in your law... Ye are gods.
Acts 17: 29 we are the offspring of God.
Rom. 8: 17 heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ.
2 Cor. 3: 18 changed into the same image from glory to glory.
Gal. 4: 7 if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.
Eph. 4: 13 Till we all come . . . unto a perfect man.
Heb. 12: 9 be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live.
1 Jn. 3: 2 when he shall appear, we shall be like him.
Rev. 3: 21 him that overcometh will . . . sit with me in my throne.
It sounds a lot like we have the potential to be like God. If you want to call it salvation, fine, but don't shortchange your potential.
  • Mormons reject scripture: No, Mormons reject many of your interpretations, because they do not fit. Look at the verses above. How can you interpret them as anything but man's potential to be like God? That is what Mormons reject.
  • The New Jerusalem: Well, Jerusalem is in Israel, but the New Jerusalem will be called Zion, and it isn't in the same location as the old Jerusalem. Now if you really wanted to understand the Mormon belief, all you had to do was look at the church website. Here is a link to an entry in the Bible Dictionary on Zion [2] I also recommend looking up articles on lds.com on Zion. There are some really interesting insights about how Christ will reign.
Good luck on your quest for truth, but it is easier to find by looking at the source (LDS.COM) than believing in the false interpretations of the Bible, and of your Christian minister's distorted views on Mormonism. Here is an article I think you should read [3]. I also really recommend reading this article [4]. It will give you a bit of the history of why Mormons are viewed as a cult. It is a phenomenon that has really only happened in the last 30 years. Before that, Mormons were just another Christian group. Let me know what you think, and if you have a Book of Mormon, why aren't you reading it? Bytebear (talk) 18:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Bytebear... Mormons believe that the Garden of Eden and where Cain slew Able is somewhere in Northern Missouri. Some Mormons ALSO believe that Jesus will return at the RLDS Temple in Independence, Some believe he will return at the temple at Far West, and some believe he will return at Salt Lake City. I've heard this even from practicing Mormons.

It sounds a lot like we have the potential to be like God. If you want to call it salvation, fine, but don't shortchange your potential.

You don't understand the Christian teaching/belief of theosis: http://orthodoxwiki.org/Theosis

Mormonism is not and never was a product of Christianity, not even Protestantism. Joseph Smith was not a Christian, be borrowed his beliefs from Christians, Muslims, Jews as well as popular Occult at the time, including some Masons. Smith was NOT inspired and never spoke with an angel, rather it was Satan or one of his minions, also as in the case of Mohammad.

Mormons cannot possibly be heretics or even a Christian cult because it didn't come from Christianity.

Even the beliefs you list cannot be Christian because they contradict even the most basic teachings of Christianity. Why do you even believe to be Christians when we were not called Christians until they named us such at Antioch? How can you possibly accept a title given to a people belonging to a Church that STILL EXISTS TODAY? http://www.antiochpat.org/ http://www.antiochian.org/ http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/Church_of_Antioch

I'm sorry, but I believe in the One holy catholic (universal) and apostolic Church. There is no other. It is the church that was preserved the Apostolic Teachings and the Apostolic Tradition. The Churches of Jerusalem, Constantinople, Antioch and Alexandria are all still a part of it even though Rome split off 1000 years ago. (to form the Roman Catholic Church)

Christianity is not some idea or some vague, grey belief that anyone can claim. It is a RELIGION in which, you actually have to be a part of and have to accept it's basic beliefs.

According to your own beliefs and theology, Mormons should NEVER even desire to be considered Christians since all Christians have departed from the truth. --KCMODevin (talk) 20:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I see the problem now. You choose to ignore the history oc Christianity between 100 AD and about 400 AD. You see in that time, the "One holy catholic (universal) and apostolic Church" didn't exist. The creeds which you are so fond of defined the church, and excommunicated all other Christians. Mormons simply believe their form of Christianity was one of those that was excommunicated, or possibly lost before that. In any case, the Christianity of Jesus Christ and his apostles was not the same Christianity that was formed in 400 AD. And Mormons believe it took an angel to restore the original church (see Revelation 14:6). And as part of that restoration, was the revelation that Theosis, although correct, was not complete, and does not fully reveal the potential of man, as an "offspring of God", and "heir with Christ." those are pretty powerful words, and should not be taken lightly, and it is Christians who assume Mormons somehow will usurp the throne of God, rather than share it. That is your mistake.
as to where Christ will return, why wouldn't he come to America? It is a promised land as well, and there is nothing wrong with believing that. And why not have Eden in America? after all, didn't God flood the whole earth, and Noah could have landed in the Middle East but come from the West? There is no reason to believe that pre-flood history also occurred in the Middle East.
So you see, Mormons have just as much right to believe that they fulfill prophecy. Read Isaiah 2 and Isaiah 15, "And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the Lord’s house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it." There are a lot of false religions and false teachers, but I know none that fulfill true prophets words. And this prophet did see Salt Lake City as clear as day. and his prophecy is fulfilled. Hard for Smith (who died before they settled Salt Lake) to fake this one. Bytebear (talk) 22:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not ignore Christianity between 100 AD and 400 AD, I uphold it, as the Orthodox Church upholds it. Orthodox always read from Early Christian fathers. I think you need to read some of:
St. Justin Martyr (100-165): http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.viii.i.html (You can look through them w/ the table at the left)
Pope Clement I of Rome (Pope from 88-90 AD, he knew St. Peter): http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ii.i.html
St. Polycarp (69-155 AD, actually a disciple of St. John): http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.iv.i.html
St. Ignatius of Antioch (35-110 AD, another disciple of St. John): http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.v.i.html
St. Irenaeus (2nd Cent. - 202 AD): http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.i.html

Do not also forget the Church fathers from the 2nd Century up to 325: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02.i.html

Orthodox frequently often these Early Church Fathers and their writings. Orthodox see them as affirming the traditions and beliefs of the Apostles, and their teachings ARE consistent with those of the Councils and after the Councils. Orthodoxy takes the writings of ALL Saints and Church Fathers TOGETHER and never accept beliefs in the writings if they contradict the majority of other writings. (St. Augustine is used in the context and compared to other Saints, unlike in the West where he is looked at in near isolation from other writings)

Ever since Pentecost and the Descent of the Holy Spirit, Christians have been ONE in belief, doctrine, tradition and practice. If you read the New Testament, you will always notice that Christ and the Apostles speak AGAINST heretics and false doctrines of people who believe in Christ but don't believe as they should. Read Revelation, John HIMSELF speaks against the Nicolaitans. --KCMODevin (talk) 01:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

That's the Orthodox view of history, but it isn't accurate. The Gnostics may have had the real truth, and the "popes" simply had them burned at the stake (not very Christlike if you ask me). I can cite various books (as some have in the other discussion) which refute your claims. Christianity was not monolithic until after 400AD, and even then you had Eastern and Western branches. No unity of faith (a tenant of Christ's church). Of course, if we look at how Orthodox Christianity was spread to the world, it was anything but Christlike. Sorry, but I simply cannot believe that God and Christ set up the system of violence and torture that follows Orthodoxy. Yes Mormonism had one instance of violence, but it was isolated, and independent of the church, but your "one holy catholic church" systematically butchered entire civilizations in the name of Christ. No, something went very wrong sometime after the writings of John and it isn't Christ's church that did it. I would read the article Apostolic Succession and see how many people make claims to be the rightful stewards of the apostles. No unity. Bytebear (talk) 17:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Bytebear... From 33 AD to 324 AD, the Popes didn't and couldn't ever burn ANYONE at the stake, as the Roman Empire was too busy killing Christians themselves and Christians were still underground and was still a group of believers being martyred. You also forget that the Pope was not the singular figure in Christendom EVER. From the first Pope up until the Great Schism, the Pope was one Patriarch among 4 others. All Patriarchs were EQUAL and had equal authority and could not step in and effect one another's jurisdictions or decisions. All decisions were made by agreement between the Patriarchs as well as local Bishops. [/br] Also, even in 400 AD, you didn't have Eastern and Western Branches, you didn't have those until the Great Schism in 1054 AD (which was finalized in the 1200s with the sack of Constantinople during the Crusades). Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople and Jerusalem all were their own jurisdictions, but were all united.

Of course, if we look at how Orthodox Christianity was spread to the world, it was anything but Christlike. Sorry, but I simply cannot believe that God and Christ set up the system of violence and torture that follows Orthodoxy.

Orthodoxy was spread through peace, martyrdom and preaching of the Gospel. You didn't have any forced conversions. The main violence that occurred was inflicted by the Byzantine Empire, however most of the time when it did these things, it was condemned by the Church. Once the Emperor was even physically denied entrance to the service by a Patriarch after he had thousands of people killed.

Here are a few instances of inquisition by the Orthodox Church on others: Old Believers after their schism from the Church Jews around the same time as above (until Tsar Nicholas ended the persecutions) Emperor Justinian had 30,000 people killed for opposing his power (however he was the Emperor of Byzantium, not a ruler of the Church) Theodosius I killed homosexuals and others, and he was the one who was barred entry into the service by the Patriarch of Constantinople. Persecution of those who rejected Chalcedon And yes we know Constantine did bad things and killed many... However he was baptised just before death, so they have no eternal bearing.

Remember, King David shed A LOT of blood and kept repenting for it. Yet we honor him as one of the greatest.


You seem to be equating "Catholic" with "Orthodox". However, Roman Catholic is in fact very different from Eastern Orthodox. The Eastern Orthodox Church IS the original Church. Roman Catholics split off from the Eastern Orthodox with the Great Schism.

The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is NOT a church of superheroes. It is a Church of sinners and hypocrites. It is the hospital for those that are sick of the soul AND body.

It ALSO remains to be the closest to Ancient Christianity as well as Judaism prior to the birth of Christ. You forget that historically the Churches worship was Liturgical, we see this in the Epistles as well as Revelation.

I'm not trying to convince you, nor do I care to convince you. You clearly are being taught this by others in your own faith even though it contradicts even secular records of history. Also keep in mind, you did not win this, and neither did I. We just simply have to agree to disagree. I simply have just been wasting time discussing this when I ought to be spending more time speaking to Eastern Orthodox Christians and focusing on continuing to try and do more than the Saints did, because I'm so much worse than them, that I will never be done repenting... --KCMODevin (talk) 01:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of Bill O'Reilly/Sources[edit]

You have deleted a citation on this page. You may want to reconsider and restore the cite, as you are confusing External Links with Sources/Citations. They are distinct.Jimintheatl (talk) 23:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I am not incorrect. Citations are also just as strict as external links. In fact, if we at Wikipedia actually put in only what was verifiable and reliable, many of the articles, like the O'Reiley one, would be paired down quite a bit. Remember, a citation is supposed to be from a secondary or tertiary source, and not presented as opinion, unless that opinion is by a well know and credible source. Your link fails in every respect. Bytebear (talk) 23:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
You referred me to External links: I visited and read. You are clearly misusing the WP:EL policies to support the deletion of a reference/citation. WP:EL makes a clear distinction, and, even if it did not, the E&P cite/link/whatever you want to mislabel it is an WP:RS.Jimintheatl (talk) 01:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Please see the talk page. External Links are not citations. It is clearly stated on WP:EL that citations belong elsewhere. Also, there is no policy that states Blogs cannot be used outright. Blogs that are self-published generally cannot be used. Blogs that are not self-published can generally. There are no strict laws on wikipedia which is backed up by WP:RAP and WP:IAR. There is only policies. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 00:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
It is clearly stated in WP:V that the blogs not allowed are self-published blogs, and are not newspaper/verifiable ones. Wikipedia:V#cite_note-4ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 00:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Please keep the discussion to the article talk page. It's easier to respond there. Bytebear (talk) 00:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Warning.[edit]

Information.svg Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 01:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't edit your comments. you had about 6 edits on the talk page and it was extremely confusing as to what you were doing. I simply added to the last post. Do not attempt to falsely accuse me of wrongdoing. Bytebear (talk)
You added the two bold tags around things I and others posted earlier. Its not that hard to tell when comparing revisions. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACriticism_of_Bill_O%27Reilly_(commentator)&diff=238711222&oldid=238710274.
If you continue to do so in the future, you will be blocked. This is a warning.

ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 01:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I was intending to add bold to my own comments when my mouse went crazy. It was completely unintentional, as you can tell from the sporadic nature of the edit. You seem a bit paranoid, but if you want an independent review of the edit, feel free. Bytebear (talk) 01:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
You do know that I chose the neutral warning template, right? (at least, I think 2 is neutral) I was going to let this pass until you started denying it. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 01:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I didn't deny it. I didn't know I even did it. Bytebear (talk) 02:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not going to push this issue further, assuming you're going to retract your inaccurate statement that I was falsely accusing you of wrongdoing, as you did edit it, and I put the warning here under the then correct assumption that you purposely edited my/others talk posts (which I thought at first was a attempt to quote stuff, although in the wrong way, explaining why I used the neutral warning, to inform/warn you). This is because I have no plausible way of telling if you are telling the truth or not, and wikipedia has a good faith policy. Anyway, users generally don't go through this much discussion on a warning that is neutral (at least, that I know of).ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 02:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
No one is forcing you to respond to my talk page. Bytebear (talk) 02:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

YouTube[edit]

Why is YouTube not note worthy? The link showed well-established and recognised (although amateur) political commentator and an actual video clip from fox news where anyone checking the reference can watch the clip to verify the contents of the Wikipedia page edit. If an actual video clip from Fox news is not note worthy, then I don't know what is. Are you a supporter of Fox News? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.139.218.241 (talk) 19:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Because it is not the actual source. Fox News is the source. Use that instead. And make sure the article is accurately cited. YouTube is often edited for POV purposes. Please review WP:EL. Also, you are using the clip to come to your own conclusions. That violates WP:OR. Please review that, and understand that references should not be primary, which your's have been. Bytebear (talk) 05:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
I tried to contribute with a comment about what the The Young Turks (whether or not they be less or more relevant than any other political commentator) think about Fox News. This is exactly what my paragraph said. I never drew any of my own conclusions about this. A video clip directly from The Young Turks is as good as reference as you are ever going to get. I could register a website, make up some news story, press release, "offical" report, or anything else I desired, and make it appear to be a suitable reference. Why should my fake website, or a written version of someone's point of view (eg if someone decided to write an article about this video clip) be a good reference while the video clip is not?

These questions may all be answered in those links you provided, but quite frankly Ive got better things to do than research, discuss and type up things about Faux News. I'm not from the USA, but in the last couple of weeks I have discovered what a propaganda machine Faux News is, and I was hoping that my 5 cents may be able to help even up the score a little. God forbid that the the Fox News-supported ticket ("You're fired!", "Dinosaurs were around 5000 years ago", "You can see Russia from my house", "I don't know the names of any newspapers or supreme court cases", "Its all about job creation", "You were raped but you have to pay for your own evidence kit and can't have an abortion") wins the election. Not sure on your background but with the wikipedia pages that you have been editing I hope that this crazy woman is not behind your motivation for saying that I have drawn my own conclusions within my edit, when I clearly did not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.139.218.241 (talk) 19:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. Bytebear (talk) 05:18, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Change to List of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints by geographic region[edit]

As a significant contributor to the List of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints by geographic region page, I wanted to be sure you knew that I've implemented a version of this page using the data templates that are used for the other temple lists/pages at User:Trödel/Sandbox3. I plan to replace the current geographic list with this change later this week. --Trödel 01:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

You LDS?[edit]

Are you LDS? I am an RM, who is atheist now. Inclusionist (talk) 19:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Bytebear, I recieved an email from someone, that started out like this:
"Hey, You put a message on my talk page about being LDS."
Was that you? There are a lot of phishes around. Inclusionist (talk) 14:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes it was me. Feel free to respond. I promise I won't spam you. Bytebear (talk) 17:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I am not worried about you, I simply have made a lot of "friends" over the years here on wikipedia. I was spammed for months by what I suspect was a wikipedian. Inclusionist (talk)

Barnstar[edit]

Barnstar-lightbulb3.png What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded to User:Bytebear for suggesting something revolutionary on the Joe the Plumber talk page which has created the first real compromise and first signs of hope, which has not happened since the page was created. Thank you, and God bless. Inclusionist (talk) 19:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

What you revolutionarily suggested. Inclusionist (talk) 19:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Kinderhook plates.gif listed for deletion[edit]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Kinderhook plates.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Remember the dot (talk) 03:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

3RR warning[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Media Matters for America. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Yilloslime (t) 23:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

January 2009[edit]

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at Media Matters for America. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Tiptoety talk 00:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

It was worth it. I made my point. Bytebear (talk) 19:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Friendly nudge[edit]

Information.svg Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary for your edits. Thank you. —Eustress talk 07:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for File:God Bless America Sheet Music.jpg}[edit]

Thank you for uploading File:God Bless America Sheet Music.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
  • That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 05:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for File:God Bless America Sheet Music.jpg}[edit]

Thank you for uploading File:God Bless America Sheet Music.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
  • That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 05:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Obama[edit]

You should take a look at the article's FAQ. And bear in mind that WND isn't considered a reliable source. Guettarda (talk) 05:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The source may be unacceptable, but the points are valid. and it is absolutely unacceptable to censor talk pages because you don't agree with them. ABSOLUTELY UNACCEPTABLE! Bytebear (talk) 05:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
If you have an alternative proposal to deal with the flood of disruption on the article that does not violate our WP:BLP and WP:NPA policies, then by all means suggest something. I'm sure people will be thrilled to hear an alternative. Or better yet, why not engage the people who are being disruptive, and try to talk some sense into them, instead of berating the people who are doing the hard work to keep the talk page and the article consistent with our policies? Guettarda (talk) 06:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm attaching an article probation notice below. Use the talk page to suggest improvements to the article, not to complain about Wikipedia or other editors. Do not edit war on article pages or talk pages. Please note that the Obama talk page has been very problematic. There is very little tolerance for this. I will likely move your comments into a section that was created for generalized complaints about whitewashing, censorship, etc. Wikidemon (talk) 06:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I specifically suggested discussing the issues brought up in the article, which are valid. They are valid points. I do not like my discussions being censored. This article defies all that Wikipedia stands for. It is a true shame. And a shape that editors like me who want to improve the neutrality of the article are shot down by even suggesting that the article is POV. Bytebear (talk) 06:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
If you say "the points raised by the article are valid", how are people supposed to know what you're talking about? The basic point of the article bears little relation to reality. If there are some nuggets of value in there, you need to explain what they are, lay them out clearly. Otherwise there's no way to distinguish you from the people claiming that Obama is born in Kenya, or some other nutty ideas like that.
In addition, it's rarely very productive to walk into a burning building and wonder why the firefighters won't engage you in your discussion of the finer points of Etruscan pottery. Guettarda (talk) 06:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I am confused? So the building is burning? I highly doubt anyone on that talk page thought I was discussing Etrscan pottery. That is a pure red herring. And if we are to discuss how to stop the fire, we shoud censor all opposing opinions? I thought the talk page was not to be censored? Am I missing something? I read through the probation limitations, and I saw nothing that warranted censorship. My comments were benign, particularly compared to the discussions all over this site. I saw someone get their suggestion that Wright deserved more attention than a single footnote. I agree. He was called by Obama his mentor. He performed Obama's marriage. He baptized Obama's children. And yet, the article implies that Rev. Wright doesn't even exist, unless you read the footnotes. But the article does mention the church, it mentinos his book "The audacity of Hope" the title given to Obama by Wright, and talks about his changing churchs, but says nothing about the massive controversy over that decision. This is POV, and to compare Wrights connection to Obama to Obama's connection to ancient pottery is outrageous. But if I were to say any of this on the Obama talk page, my comments would be removed within 30 seconds. This is censorship. The article isn't being protected, the topic is being protected. Please understand the difference. Bytebear (talk) 15:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Article probation notice[edit]

Information.svg Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Talk:Barack Obama, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- Wikidemon (talk) 06:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Ayers[edit]

Let's settle this here instead of filling the article to the brim. Soxwon (talk) 23:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

If you want. your arguments have been basically that it isn't noteworthy, but it is. My suggestion is simple, unbias, and factual. It doesn't introduce POV, but simply states the facts of why Ayers became an issue in the campaign. It deserves to be included. Bytebear (talk) 23:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Meh, I agree the sentence is fine, I'm just worried that once we start there will be calls for more more more. Soxwon (talk) 23:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Probably, but let's cross that bridge when we get to it. Bytebear (talk) 23:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
We should be fine, I think I exhausted just about every bridge playing devil's advocate Soxwon (talk) 23:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Ok. I will update the talk, and look at how best to integrate the text. Thanks. Bytebear (talk) 23:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Right, (I know it looks like I'm full of it with the whole exchange with Brothejr, then claiming I was devil's advocate, but I just didn't want to be lumped in with the wing-nuts) anyways cheers!


Boy, this sure is a mess, isn't it. MalikCarr (talk) 02:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it is, but I find that if you are polite, and press for specifics, the process seems to go a little smoother. Thanks for your input. Bytebear (talk) 02:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I do hope we reach some kind of modest agreement on this topic - I'd rather not have Bill O'Reilly take Brothejr's interpretation of the subject as to lump all of us in Wikipedia in as a "far-left secular-progressive web community", you know? MalikCarr (talk) 02:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
well, for the record I am a socially moderate libertarian, but on Wikipedia I try to remain completely objective. I picture myself as a foreign exchange student reading the topic for the first time, and if something sounds bias or is missing, I fight to change it. Unfortunately, not everyone thinks that way. Bytebear (talk) 02:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
That's a good position to have, just don't go discussing objectivity around any historiography students, they'll rant at you all day about how it's a farce (editing from Historiography at CSU Channel Islands right now, godawful class - this is why I'll never do postgraduate work in History!). MalikCarr (talk) 02:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
That's good advice. If I ever run into a historiography student, I will keep my mouth shut. Bytebear (talk) 02:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Tilting at Windmills[edit]

It has reached the point on the Obama talk page that arguments just need to run out as time passes, and the news cycle changes. I have enjoyed reading your engagements of drive-by editors regarding the bias of the article, but I also believe that it is not a winnable argument. Let not your heart be troubled, I think it time to let the talk page run its course and then be archived. Just my thoughts, happy editing to you. Keegantalk 05:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I'm not a historiography student, but I did get my BA in History ;) Keegantalk 05:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I think I have enough concensus to make a difference as long as people are willing to speak up for inclusivity and not censorship. My goal is to show Ayers connection with Obama in his early career, and then show how that connection caused the controversy in the campaign. It seems a clear cause and effect. Trouble is people just get hung up on wanting to hide the facts because someone might associate Obama with the controversy. That is up to the reader to decide, but it shouldn't be censored because people are afraid of the perceived truth. Now if I could just get people to read the arguments before calling the issue a "fringe theory." When I see those comments, I know they are kooks. Thanks for your moral support. Bytebear (talk) 05:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
My contention is that nothing constructive will come of the article during the current debate. So what I'm saying is let us all regular editors stop warring on the talk pages, let the dust settle, and then figure out where to go. I may or may not be a part of that debate; I tend to steer clear of articles where I have a bias but this has gotten out of hand. Right now all the discussion is with IPs and temporary accounts that don't actually care about the quality of the page. Compromise will be reached, but that talk page right now is an awful mess. Thanks again for participating in the discussion in a logical way. Keegantalk 06:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Ha, and by the way, I was not meaning to quote Sean Hannity with the "Let not your heart be troubled." There is much irony in that. Keegantalk 06:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
HA! I just assumed you were quoting the Bible (John 14: 1, 27 - not that I am a scriptorian, I just know how to look up things really, really fast). Bytebear (talk) 06:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Great, that was my intent. Frankly I am on the opposite side of the fence as you, and with the Wright/Ayers issue I've said that before and think I was thinking Hannity. I listen to him daily, as I keep my friends close but my enemies closer. Nice. Happy editing to you. Keegantalk 06:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Obama comment[edit]

Thank you for deleting my duplicate post, I must have hit the "save page" button twice. So, thank you for vigilantly fixing my mistakes. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 22:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Bytebear (talk) 22:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

This tired old liberal, partisan attempt at painting anyone who doesn't agree with them as somehow "fringe" is getting very old. If it's so absurd, why have they sepnt so much time attempting to refute it? I merely said so, and was happy to. Newguy34 (talk) 02:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Weathermen[edit]

Commented, that's starting to get to be a little bit of a double standard IMO...Soxwon (talk) 02:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. What's good for the goose, and all that. Thanks for your input. It seems some others are beginning to take notice too, so we won't have ownership of the page (or the edit). Bytebear (talk) 02:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring[edit]

Please do not WP:EW to insert your preferred version of this article. You are up at WP:3RR,[5][6][7] which means that any further reverts will be a blockable violation. The edits you are trying to insert do not follow the sources, and differ in a numbers of ways from the consensus approach to describing the Obama / Ayers controversy. Also, you seem to be aware you are edit warring.[8] It is not good to edit war regarding Barack Obama, the subject of article probation. Wikidemon (talk) 03:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

oh, please, are you a sock puppet? You are on your second revert, and it has been done by two editors who aren't me. [9][10] Your only recourse is to threaten me with a ban? You are transparent. Bytebear (talk) 03:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
So if we disagree w/you do we get banned? Soxwon (talk) 03:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Mafiapedia. Bytebear (talk) 03:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm hoping that this is just a result of WND's, I would hope our histories would show us to be legitimate editors voicing legitimate concerns with articles. Yet if we disagree we're automatically lumped into the right wing conspiracy? Soxwon (talk) 03:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
it's not even about left or right, but about what the sources say. It's very frustrating when people look to a blog as a primary source ignoring ligitmate sources. I didn't even pick right leaning sources, but chose CNN and NYTimes because they are left leaning. Bytebear (talk) 03:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I'll add WP:CIVIL - don't go there. Yes, violating 3rr to edit war disputed content is a blockable offense. A warning gives you an opportunity to stop short of getting yourself blocked. You (bytebear) do need to shape up on edit warring, civility, and tendentious / WP:BATTLE behavior. Mocking defiance is not exactly shaping up. Wikidemon (talk) 06:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
You do what you feel you must, but the facts still stand. The article is POV. Bytebear (talk) 00:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Disneyland front gate.jpg[edit]

File:Disneyland front gate.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Disneyland front gate.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Disneyland front gate.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Redlands temple 2.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Redlands temple 2.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 20:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
File:Redlands temple 3.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Redlands temple 3.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 20:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
File:SanDiegoTemple.JPG is now available as Commons:File:SanDiegoTemple.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 10:15, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello[edit]

Either go to [11] and add your comments to the investigation or apologize for the false accusation you made against me at [12]. Cheers. Duke53 | Talk 14:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The investigation was inconclusive, and the moderator commented that they understood my reasoning. You deserve no apology. Bytebear (talk) 21:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Nice interpretation, but not at all the truth ... here is what the 'moderator' said: "Clerk note: Per the checkuser criteria, we do not use the checkuser tool to prove innocence. Icestorm815 • Talk 16:25, 19 July 2009 (UTC)" Nothing about 'inconclusive', nothing about 'understanding your reason".
Did you misunderstand another editor's comments as being official ? I don't think so.
Heck of a nice try though. Cheers. Duke53 | Talk 00:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Byte, move on. This conversation will profit you nothing. Of course, if this a serving as a few minutes of amusement, go for it. I must admit that I have done that in the past myself. Though it can be fun, Wikipedia is not the proper forum for it.--StormRider 19:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Beck and Skousen[edit]

I have responded on the talk pages of Talk:Glenn Beck and Talk:Cleon Skousen. I may not be able to put anything else forward until next week. --Hardindr (talk) 03:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Too Much Politics For You?[edit]

From what I can tell you are an intelligent and reasonable guy that should be an overall asset to the wikipedia community. The problems that I have seem to keep popping up when you start getting into political disputes on POV and other often contentious issues. It seem that your own political views cause you to make snap judgment calls which rarely seem to be helpful. The quality of your other work could suffer from this, and I hope you'll just stick to your non-political wiki-homes and keep up the good work. (sorry that this probably didn't get done right, but I have no idea what I'm doing trying to edit on wikipedia, so if this even comes out as something readable in the correct spot I'll be happy). no username, but my name is Brooks 74.61.145.211 (talk) 09:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

hi Brooks, I hope you create an account and give yourself a little more credibility. I also recommend studying the various guidelines of Wikipedia. This site is not a free for all. I have not debated one single political issue. If you look at my edit history, you will see that I remove POV from both sides of the political spectrum, so I can't even tell which article you are complaining about. Bytebear (talk) 16:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

LDS in the US[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States&diff=307408163&oldid=307407354

What do you think of this? I think the original version is better, rather than DocKino (who was recently blocked for disruption). You probably know more about the LDS so I will leave it to you. User F203 (talk) 19:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you are on the right track, but I think it needs to be a summary of well known religious movements within the US. See my thoughts here Talk:The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints#is_the_LDS_religion_obscure_and_unimportant.3F.

Fox Campaign[edit]

Is it just me or does it seem like Fox News articles are getting a lot of new and concentrated editors? I wonder if some organization or blog is directing people against this news channel and its hosts. Something smells fishy. Morphh (talk) 20:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I find it interesting that now that Glenn Beck is with Fox, his page is getting a lot more attention from would be critics. I think you may be right that some blogs are trying to tip consensus on Wikipedia. Fortunately, the rules of Wikipedia are keeping them at bay. I would love to see the Fox News controversies be deleted per WP:POVFORK and have any true relevance added to articles directly relating to them. All we can do is remind people of the rules, and explain what true NPOV really is. I think some of the backlash is caused by the Criticism of Bill O'Reilly POVFORK article being slated for deletion. I think a lot of critics of him are retaliating. Thanks for your input. I will look at some of the Fox News articles and see what is going on. Bytebear (talk) 20:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


Ya, maybe I'm just being overly paranoid. I don't usually edit these articles, so it could be the norm, it just seems like a lot of anon ip and new accounts. Not use to it I guess. Morphh (talk) 20:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Another explanation might be that Beck's behavior since joining Fox has motivated his critics to make sure that the Wikipedia page on him is complete. You should be happy. If it weren't for people like Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity, people like me might never have contributed to Wikipedia at all! Bytebear -- please assume good faith. There is no conspiracy. I can imagine that if we were discussing Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann or Ed Schultz, the tables would turn and it would be me making sure that you are following the rules in new content. This is constructive! Hopefully, we'll end up with complete and WP:NPOV information in the end. MichaelLNorth (talk) 20:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
It seemed like more than Beck and it seemed to be very quick. Like 0-60 in a couple weeks with many first time anon contributions. Like I said, could be nothing. Just an observation and since I don't edit these types of articles often, I was asking an editor that I thought might have a better view of the biography landscape for these characters. I've seen campaigns before, so I'm just being cautious that things are discussed properly and not just overwhelmed by force. Morphh (talk) 21:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I am virtually certain it is nothing more than recent concerns of misinformation being spread by both the far left and the far right. One side says "Obama wants to kill your grandma" and the other says "Our health plan will be deficit neutral". The net effect is everyone starts fact checking. As long as people keep content in the realm of verifiable notable facts, more people working on incomplete articles should result in higher quality content. I understand why you are concerned, but let's not use it as a means of discrediting everyone with a certain viewpoint, or even everyone who recently took interest in the article. MichaelLNorth (talk) 21:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I am not only concerned with conservative commentators. I have a few liberals on my watch list and I revert a few anon contributions there too, but it is far less frequent than with conservatives. When I started using Wikipedia, the Bill O'Reilly article was nothing more than a big list of references to things he said on his show. I filled it in with context and made sure I had third party sources. Since then, the article has been bloated to a POVFORK and now we have to deal with not only reducing the amount of non-notable information, but all the editors who consider each and every criticism as their baby and they will fight tooth and nail to make sure everyone knows that he said something bad about their pet cause. I am trying to keep the Beck article, and every other article that is attacked similarly from ending with the same fate. My only tools are the rules of Wikipedia, which if followed correctly, end up naturally with a NPOV article, and an article that is actually encyclopedic as opposed to a tabloid newspaper. So, that's where I am coming from, and it seems to be working, especially with established fair minded wikipedians. Bytebear (talk) 23:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps I misunderstand what you're saying, but "protecting" articles in this fashion is WP:OWN. Please understand that your and my goal of a WP:NPOV article may contain some criticisms, and some of these criticisms may not be considered notable by you. Right now there are no criticisms and controversies at all, and your editing behavior seems oriented towards keeping it that way. You are doing virtually the same thing that you object to, except you are fighting tooth and nail to keep all criticisms out instead of fighting to keep them in. I'm trying to be nice about this, as I believe you have good intentions, but planting your feet in the ground and refusing to budge is not an effective way to collaborate. MichaelLNorth (talk) 01:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I am not against criticism, but I think when dealing with BLP, we need to make sure that any criticism is what the person is noteworthy for. For example, Lizzy Bordon is known for hacking up her parents. If she were to criticize Obama, I am sure that would not be particularly noteworthy to her, or her legacy. Political commentators say a lot of things about a lot of people. They may be known for a particular style, but they are not known for specific incidents, other than perhaps Don Imas since he was fired for his comments. A lot of people complain about political commentators, and they will look for anything to raise criticisms. Most, if not all of those criticisms fade over time. For example, the Beck article a year ago had criticism of Michael Moore in its content. Is that particular criticism really pertinent today? Am I unwilling to compromise? No. I have suggested several times to put specific criticisms in the articles best apt to deal with them. If people boycott Beck's show, cover that in the Beck show article. If he criticized a Muslim politician, cover it in the politician's article. Beck offends people every day. We cannot cover every incident, and to be fair to weight, we would have to cover every thing he said about everything. There are just as many articles about Beck's comments on General Motors, and on Illegal Immigration, but no one is fighting to put those facts in the article, because they aren't particularly exciting, but they are just as well covered, if not more. No, the only reason people want these issues in the article, is because they personally feel an affront to them. They are leading with their own POV. You accuse me of doing the same, but I am just trying to keep the article in context, and avoiding issued that have risen in other articles of a similar vein. And I am not alone. There are at least four other Wikipedians who agree with my edits. Bytebear (talk) 02:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Do you agree that without necessarily mentioning specific details about individual incidents, putting the information you just mentioned above in the article would be appropriate? Nothing in the Glenn Beck article tells me that "[He] offends people every day". In fact, your edits, which seem to be an effort to keep information of this nature out of the article, bring it even farther out of context. I learned more pertinent about Glenn Beck in what you just wrote than is available in the article. MichaelLNorth (talk) 02:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I have been pushing for his on-air personality to be covered in his show article. I think you can have a brief comment of his on-air personality, but I don't think you can define him by it. When I say "he offends people every day" I say that the same way I say it about Obama. He also offends people every day. So does Hillary Clinton and Bill O'Reilly. Offending people is not particularly noteworthy. What you need to do is take some of the articles about Beck and his show, and summarize them. Take their main points and review them in a NPOV way. For example, one article (which is somewhat negative toward him) calls Beck "brilliant," so should we just blatantly say that he is brilliant? I think the Time magazine paragraph is a good example of this technique. Bytebear (talk) 02:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Bytebear, I do think there is an organized effort. Ever since Beck said he thought Obama was a racist, there have been groups trying to get him fired from FNC. One notable example is Color Of Change, which was founded partly by Van Jones (who happens to be Obama's Green Jobs Czar). Wikipedia seems to be turning into a political battleground because FNC is a serious danger to the Obama agenda. Arzel (talk) 03:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not one for conspiracy theories, but I do think the left is covering "controversies" in an effort to create noteworthy status for the sole purpose of inclusion in Wikipedia. It's a good strategy if they can pull it off. Certainly HuffingtonPost fits this scenario. Bytebear (talk) 03:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
The idea that news coverage of controversies around Beck is intended to get them into Wikipedia is navel gazing of the highest order. And I've said this on the talk page, and I'll repeat it here: it is not just the left who are reporting on these controveries. The Financial Times is reporting on the loss of advertisers today:[13]. The mainstream media think this is a notable controversy, and for better or worse, Wikipedia takes its lead from mainstream reliable sources. Fences&Windows 13:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Those issues are prefectly suited to his show page. They do not and will not define beck the person in the long term. Bytebear (talk) 16:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Interesting point, Bytebear. Do you think the line between the show and the person is drawn at the right point at the moment, or does it need to move a bit? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
my suggestion is to have Beck the person described by third party sources in a generic sense: "He is known for his style of being X", but not by using POV examples: "He is known for being X because of incident Y and Z". Using specific incidents introduces POV and undue weight to issues that certain editors feel are most pressing. One editor said that Beck's most known attribute was an interview with a Muslim congressman. Surely that can't be true, but this editor wants the article to put a spotlight on that incident. And in a year, or two, no one will even remember that interview. Once we add even a few examples, that opens the door for more and more to be added, and soon we have a list of trivia and open the door for a POV Fork. I have suggested that each issue be covered in the articles that are noteworthy to them. For example, the Beck interview with the Muslim congressman is covered in the congressman's article. Several of the issues deal specifically with his show, and his on-air persona, and as such, should be covered in his show article. But even then, I think these issues will fade with time, and a year from now, they will not be in Wikipedia. That is unless stubborn editors insist that trivial actions of years ago are still an issue. Bytebear (talk) 02:52, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Bytebear, you have certainly made clear that you feel inclusion of certain specific events pushes the article towards a certain point of view. It must then be true that excluding these pieces of information keeps/pushes the article towards the opposite point of view. There are ways of writing about these topics without introducing a POV fork (i.e., describing the views of his critics and proponents from a third party perspective) -- so let's not let the tail wag the dog by allowing fear of forking to dictate what should and shouldn't be included. MichaelLNorth (talk) 15:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Re[edit]

Sure, I'll see what I can come up with, but first I think it needs to be established why they should be moved. Soxwon (talk) 02:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that's been established if people will stop arguing WP:IDONTLIKEIT and argue the real issues. Bytebear (talk) 03:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Juice Plus[edit]

Patriot Missile33 is involved in an edit war again on Juice Plus. Can you have a look at the edit history and Talk page and offer some guidance for resolution. Thanks. Rhode Island Red (talk) 04:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

it looks like he has been reported. I am sure given his recent history of edit warring, the appropriate action will be taken. Bytebear (talk) 18:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

August 2009[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Glenn Beck. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. OnoremDil 18:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:BLP. I am entitled to remove possible libel from articles of living persons. That includes misrepresentation of reliable sources. Bytebear (talk) 18:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I was leaving this message before you used WP:BLP as a justification for making them. In any case, I think WP:UNDUE and WP:SYNTH would be a better place to start. There's no doubt about what he said. --OnoremDil 18:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Fine, if you agree, then help improve the article, rather than just give me a warning. Picking one statement out of two random articles to imply hypocrisy is clearly POV, and it does violate BLP. Bytebear (talk) 19:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Nuvola apps important.svg You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Glenn Beck. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Multiple editors continue to support the inclusion of well cited materials, yet you have removed it at least four times today, constituting a breach of 3RR. ANy more today will be taken to the 3RR incident board. ThuranX (talk) 19:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, please. If you can't be objective, you need to not be on Wikipedia. I cleaned up the contect of your objections. I thought you and others were grown up to fix it yourselves, but clearly I was mistaken. Bytebear (talk) 19:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for edit warring[edit]

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg
You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. talk

You have edit warred on no less than 7 occasions in less than 24 hours [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20]. This is completely unacceptable and you were warned for it above.

I know that other editors are warring as well, and I am looking into that now and there will likely be an additional block or two. But that does not excuse your edit warring, which seems to be the most egregious. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I am working toward consensus, and trying to keep POV editors in check. If you notice, three of those edits were actually rewording of the content to avoid POV. But, other editors insist on presenting the material in the worst possible light, one of them saying he wanted to "catalog his idiocies". I am sorry more editors don't see the transparency of such POV. Bytebear (talk) 23:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Please do not misrepresent the facts. The first 6 diffs are simply you deleting material—there is no "rewording" whatsoever. The last diff is you undoing another editor's revert of your wording change. All 7 are absolutely reverts, and thus you are way, way over the 3RR line. It's telling that, rather than acknowledge you were wrong to edit war, you are attempting (quite unconvincingly) to lawyer yourself out of three of the reverts (which would still leave you in technical violation of 3RR anyway). You have edit warred to this same level as recently as late July, and you are rather lucky that this is your first block for your behavior at Glenn Beck.
FYI, 7RR in less than 24 hours and "working toward consensus" do not go very well together, and a claim that you are committed to the latter while clearly engaging in the former will probably not prove convincing to most objective observers. It's also worth pointing out that, of all the complaints about POV editing at the Glenn Beck page, the majority are directed at you. I spent several hours last night extensively reviewing the goings on over there for the past few weeks, and your editing pattern is undeniably problematic. The edit warring needs to stop, and you need to make more concerted efforts to work toward consensus on the talk page. User:Morphh seems to have been doing a good job of that, so you might take a cue from that editor's efforts to reach compromise and their willingness to acknowledge the concerns of those who have a different position when it comes to article content. Those who disagree with you are not solely, or even primarily, "POV editors," and it's best that you dissuade yourself of that notion sooner than later. Doing so has the added benefit of lining up squarely with one of our core guidelines. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

For the barnstar Soxwon (talk) 07:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

You deserve it. I can't handle ignorance wrapped in hostility. Bytebear (talk) 07:46, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
It must suck to be you then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.148.158.182 (talk) 11:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure it does, as Bytebear is constantly surrounded by people like you. --Trödel 16:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Just a suggestion[edit]

You might want to have your page semi-protected. Soxwon (talk) 19:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

ANI[edit]

Hello, Bytebear. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 13:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar[edit]

Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar.png The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Thank you for your hard work and contribution on wikipedia. Tiggerjay (talk) 04:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Glenn Beck[edit]

Re our last two edits. I wasn't trying to imply hypocrisy, just a change of view. Beck is a complicated guy. I saw these competing edits between that Jim guy and lobot guy over whether his political views (as stated by a Beck editorical) should be in there. It seems that some mention should be made regarding how his views crystalized over time; the abortion view is the best documented. I don't feel strongly either way on it.

  1. 18:12, 11 September 2009 Bytebear (talk | contribs) (27,677 bytes) (Undid revision 313227858 by Milowent (talk) The source is ok, but the context is POV. It implies hipocracy which is false.) (undo)
  2. (cur) (prev) 18:07, 11 September 2009 Milowent (talk | contribs) (28,027 bytes) (→Political views: if we're gonna have this recitation of political views being debated between jim and lobot, perhaps this should be added for context?) (undo)

--Milowent (talk) 18:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't object to the content, just to the context. The article you cited was really about the history of Beck and his rise from a scruffy radio DJ to a polished political comentator. You were placing the content in a political context, when really it belongs in an early history or biography section. Beck's life has gone through a lot of changes, and changing his position on specific political and social issues is not really noteworthy. For example, in joining the LDS Church, I am sure his position on drinking, smoking, prophets, scripture, family values, church attendance, tithing, all changed with that decision, but do we need a bullet list of all those issues? Not really. The article you used as a source was also not using abortion as a bullet point, but as one example out of many, as to how Beck has changed over the years. Also, by connecting things without sources that explicitly connect, them you are creating original research and synthesis. Bytebear (talk) 18:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
It ain't original research, I ain't that smart (as glenn might say), but I see your point. If would make more sense to go to the background old history section than anywhere else. --Milowent (talk) 18:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but don't just cherry pick the facts you want to present. Read the article, and figure out what the main points the author is making, and reflect those facts in the article. Otherwise, you are using a source to present your conclusions, and not the authors. Bytebear (talk) 18:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Um, every wikipedia edit is a "cherry picking" of facts the editor thinks should be presented. We don't include beck's 1988 michael jackson hoax in the article because its trivial. If Glenn Beck's change of opinion on abortion should be included (and maybe not where I suggested it), the article is a good source for that. Its not my conclusion that he changed his position, the article just says it. --Milowent (talk) 19:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Not really. We pick our facts based on rules of NPOV, Notability, weight and context. If the only source you can find that says Beck was once pro-choice isn't about his political positions but more about his life journey, that indicates that the fact is more trivial, and less notable. If, however several reliable sources do full articles just on the subject of Beck's changing views on abortion, then it makes more sense to include that information. Bytebear (talk) 19:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Beck[edit]

You have been around long enough to know the common WP:BOLD practice. Knock it off. Attempt to fix it or go to the talk page.Cptnono (talk) 02:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me? Read WP:BLP and WP:AGF, then get back to me. Actually, let me make it easy for you:
We must get the article right.[1] Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.
Now what were you saying? Bytebear (talk) 02:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I've tried to address your concerns wrt Skousen[edit]

in my last few edits. What do you think?↜ (‘Just M E here , now) 19:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't specifically look at your edits. but the entire section should be removed. The first reference doesn't even mention Beck, and yet is the crux of the entire paragraph. The ones that do mention Beck are editorial pieces but are presented as fact or the footnote refers directly to Beck interviews and is original research and probably missing context and is POV. The article implies explicit states that Beck's main influence is Skousen, but this has been disputed by Beck and others directly. He did forward one book, but the connection ends there. The article makes it seem like Skousen is his mentor. It's so out of balance. The fact is, Beck wrote the forward to one book. Everything else is left wing opinion trying to tie Beck to extreme views. Bytebear (talk) 19:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I do think Skousen greatly influences Beck's political philosophy quite a bit, so my belief in this regard shades my interest in including the material, I'm sure. In any case, IMO the Alexander Zaichik stuff is important, if problematic in dealing with Z's axe grinding/general tone. But did you see the more balanced tone within scholar Joana Brooks's reference to Skousen's influence? And, Bytebear, if you think even Brooks buys into more influence than justified, please check out Beck's extremely recent interview with Chris Ruddy here.↜ (‘Just M E here , now) 20:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Brooks's works:
  • American Lazarus: Religion and the Rise of African-American and Native American Literatures (2003)
  • Face Zion Forward: First Writers of the Black Atlantic (2002)
  • [Her] edition of the Interesting Narrative of Olaudah Equiano (2004)
  • The Collected Writings of Samson Occom: Literature and Leadership in Eighteenth-Century Native America (2006) -- from her blog (link)↜ (‘Just M E here , now) 20:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
The reference to Beck's conversion to Mormonism is a bit skewed. The source puts way to much emphasis on Skousen in Mormon circles. He was prominent in the 1960s when the US was very anti-Communist, but just like the rest of the country, Mormons have let the rhetoric of the past fade. I think you need sources about Mormonism and Communism to back up this source in order to validate statements like "A significant figure in this world [Mormon thought and culture] is the late Cleon Skousen." That statement is simply false. Or at best, very out of date. I think the influence of Mormonism is a big part of Beck's life, but to over emphasize Skousen as a core Mormon cultural influence is absolutely off base. They are separate issues. Also, Beck was impressed by one concept from Skousen, but not by all of Skousen's work, and to overstate the latter and to basically put a mini-bio of Skousen is way too much weight on the issue. I also think you need to find more neutral and more mainstream sources to consider this worthy of the amount of space being used to cover it. This is also clearly an opinion piece, as the comment, "It is likely that Beck owes his brand of Founding Father-worship to Mormonism" clearly says. If you include this source, it must be presented as this author's opinion of where Beck gets his ideals. So I would have the Beck article say something simple, like "Joanna Brooks believes that many of Beck's political views grew from his conversion to the LDS Church." That's basically what the source says. But to cherry pick the details to synth a connection to Skousen is far reaching.
As to the second link, it is a primary source, not applicable to Wikipedia. Find a reliable secondary source that covers this as important, and then we can include it. It's also very long, and Beck covers a lot of ground. I see it being cherry picked to further a POV. I also hate tv interviews or show snippets because they are off the cuff, and easy to modify context. I would rather have his books cited because more thought is put in them, and they are sorely missing as sources for what Beck believes.Bytebear (talk) 22:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Bytebear, would you give your permission for me to quote this section of your talkpage in full on the Beck blp's talkpage?↜ (‘Just M E here , now) 22:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Please do. It's where it belongs, anyway. I just finished listenting to that entire interview, by the way, and Beck mentions the Skousen book once almost in passing, while actually emphasizing the reading of the Constitution and a biography of George Washington. This is what I mean whe I complain about cherry picking. Bytebear (talk) 22:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
(Well, I moved this section to the artcle's talkpage only up to "... But to cherry pick the details to synth a connection to Skousen..... -- So, we're back to just talkpage chatter again, now.)
BTW, did you see this in the Boston Phoenix?

"[ . . . ] Of course, just because Beck’s politics are Skousenian doesn’t necessarily mean they’re deeply Mormon. No intellectual tradition can be reduced to one individual — and in 1979, the LDS Church formally distanced itself from the Freemen Institute, which Skousen founded in 1971 to promulgate his half-baked ideas. (At the time, the LDS Church was led by Spencer Kimball, known for receiving the revelation that finally opened the Mormon priesthood to black men. For his part, Skousen accused critics of this notorious racial ban of using communist tactics.) ¶ But Skousen is hardly Beck’s only major Mormon influence. His understanding of present-day realities also reflects the paranoid anti-communism of Ezra Taft Benson, who served as secretary of agriculture in the Eisenhower administration and later, from 1985 to 1994, as president of the LDS Church. (According to Mormon doctrine, each church president, at the time of his service, functions as a living prophet.) ¶ [ . . . ] ¶ Benson and Skousen were products of the Cold War’s heyday, in which Americans of all religious stripes were spooked by real and imagined manifestations of the Red Menace. But they also emerged from the distinct culture of Mormonism — which was shaped in its earliest days by violent conflict with the US government, and which still brings its own unique understanding to bear on key political concepts and institutions.
¶ [ . . . ] ¶ [ . . . ] ¶
“Anybody that’s going back to the John Birch era is going to discover Ezra Taft Benson,” Jan Shipps, an emeritus professor at Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI) and eminent non-Mormon scholar of Mormonism, tells the Phoenix. “To say he’s going in that direction because he became a Mormon is pushing it a little far.”

The prolific historian D. Michael Quinn, who grew up in the LDS Church, makes a similar point. Quinn — who was trained at Yale, and has taught there and at BYU — was excommunicated by the LDS Church in 1993 after pursuing several incendiary topics in Mormon history. He suspects that Beck’s conservatism led him to embrace the LDS Church, rather than the other way around. “The combination of Skousen and Benson would have been very attractive to him,” says Quinn. “I think he’s now sharing with America what originally attracted him to Mormonism.”

Even if Shipps and Quinn are right, though, that doesn’t mean that Beck’s faith is insignificant.
[ . . . ]

Interesting, IMO.↜ (‘Just M E here , now) 23:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
( -- BTW, echoing what Quinn said, [http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2009/09/26/glenn-beck-goes-home-to-face-what-else-controversy/ here is a pic from a Christian Science Monitor of Beck as a child dressed up as a Minute Man.)↜ (‘Just M E here , now) 00:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Interesting. I think people are trying to connect too many dots. I would be very hesitant to call Beck "Skousonian". I think that label, and all the finger pointing is the same thing Obama went through with Ayers. It's finding one small connection with a man who is easy to vilify. And that is extremely POV. Bytebear (talk) 23:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Bytebear, due to your concerns (or, I should say, due to the concerns of Wikipedia -- as you have helped to outline for me... ), I've gone ahead and changed the article from essentially calling Beck Skousen's acolyte to our saying that a commentator is calling him somewhat Skousenitish, since I believe that the thought of commentators in this regard is indeed an opinion of note. After all, there is, a Wikipedia page devoted to the notable subject of commentary about the Obama-Ayers connection, too.↜ (‘Just M E here , now) 23:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
(@ your comment on the article's talkpage): IMO the Obama blp should mention O's association with Ayers (...but, there you go...).↜ (‘Just M E here , now) 01:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree. Ayers had far more personal impact with Obama (being alive and working directly with him) than Skousen did with Beck being dead and all. Bytebear (talk) 01:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
(@ you comment on my talkpage): Well, you've got me "thinking about" those concerns you've mentioned, anyway. So, I guess, thankyou. :^)↜ (‘Just M E here , now) 02:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Good deal. If you want to do further research, look into the Mormon belief on the creation of the US and the importance of religious freedom to all people (not just Mormons). See the articles of Faith #11 for example. So a theocratic concept is just not conceivable in describing Skousen. But glad you are being open to my comments Bytebear (talk) 02:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
(@ you comment on my talkpage): What you'd called the leftist press is actually -- for better or worse, I suppose -- the existing (or "legacy-," if you will) media. Hence, the opinions it gives coverage to are, by Wikipedia's defitions, considered notable. Whereas we should tweak our presentation of these opinions to achieve optimum balance (per WP:NPOV), per WP:PRESERVE we would leave out notable information were we not to grant such opinions full coverage IMO. (Or, if you prefer, my short answer, Bytebear, to your question is -- yes. <smiles>)↜ (‘Just M E here , now) 02:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
My short answer: undue weight... in the extreme. Bytebear (talk) 02:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Consensus[edit]

Given there has been no discussion in talk, could you please explain from where you're getting justification for "consensus" in this edit? For years consensus has been that "liberal" is not an accurate or acceptable term in this article despite your best efforts; I'd like to know where this new consensus came from that decided it was acceptable for a category. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 17:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

In your own words, you said that liberal is essentially the same as progressive, so even you are on the side of consensus. Are you changing your mind now? Bytebear (talk) 00:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure if I should laugh at you or cry for you. At least you're consistent, misunderstanding (or willfully misstating) my position as much as you misunderstand (or misstate) Wikipedia policy. Maybe this RFC will help both finally sink in! //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 10:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I ask for RfC and you call up all the usual suspects to back up your claim. I am still waiting for someone uninvolved to chime in. What a joke. Bytebear (talk) 19:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Though I flattered you think I'm omnipotent or otherwise well connected, but it's far more likely that you're just plain wrong, and it seems the community has finally recognized that you're not making helpful good faith suggestions. I won't bother asking for you to justify or retract your accusation, as I don't think you have the integrity to do so. Honestly, going to such extremes to construct an elaborate conspiracy (and offending every responding editor with your accusations) makes you look pathetic. It's probably time for you to step away from these sorts of subjects; it's clear your personal opinions cloud your ability to recognize or respect consensus. Best of luck. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

RFC closed[edit]

I have closed your RFC after 7 days with no objection to closure. Since this is a clear and near-unanimous rejection of your assertions, I hope that we've put to bed any lingering question as to the appropriateness of your campaign to call MMFA "liberal". Cheers. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Obviously you see this as some sort of victory, but the simple fact, is you are misrepresenting my position, which was not to label the group as "liberal" but to categorize them in "American Liberal Organizations" because they fit in no comparable subcategory. The issue was subjugated when someone decided to create the category "American Progressive Organizations" which appeased the opposition, at least temporarily. But the issue remains. Do you classify by self identification or by public opinion. I still see a double standard and inconsistency, with liberal organizations being able to define themselves as "progressives" but libertarians being lumped in with conservatives and Republicans. I just wish you and others who fight for the "progressive" label would be less hypocritical. Bytebear (talk) 04:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
I have no idea how you think I've "misrepresented your position" unless you're trying to confine reality to this particular RFC -- On the whole you've attempted to lead a charge towards injecting the word "liberal" in some shape or form (be it wording in the intro, labels in the body, or applied categories) no fewer than three times I can think of off the top of my head (and undoubtedly more if I cared to dig). Given your repeated and vehement attempts, I think it's fair to say that it was pretty high on your agenda. I'm not here for a "victory"; this is not a battleground. What I am trying to do is to make sure that you hear consensus this time, as it's a sore waste of everyone's time to have to rehash the same arguments every time you think of some new way to try and slide in your preferred label. I think you've severely misinterpreted the consensus, too -- no one even mentioned some sister category about Progressive organizations; they simply stated that using the "liberal" category is improper. The tone of your message above, especially with your focus on "progressives and liberals" vs. "conservatives and libertarians", makes it pretty clear that your interest is in servicing a battle-minded agenda -- your pointy statement above basically says "I'm angry that Libertarians are lumped in with Conservatives, so I'm going to do everything I can to try and lump Liberals in with Progressives." Certainly we can/should agree that (1) Wikipedia isn't the forum for that sort of engagement; and (2) there is no longer any question (if there was any legitimate question before) that the label is improper. Cheers! //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Once again, you misunderstand my position. It isn't that libertarians are lumped in with conservatives and liberals are lumped in with progressives. It's that there is a double standard when it comes to labeling politically, and those pairings are easy to show the bias of Wikipedia. I simply want consistency of policy across all articles. But I hear the same people in one article arguing the exact opposite in another. And that is bothersome. Bytebear (talk) 04:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Amusement Park WikiProject[edit]

Hello Bytebear. Recently, the Amusement Parks WikiProject was reformatted and revived. As part of this process other related WikiProjects (such as Disneyland, Herschend Family Entertainment, Universal Parks & Resorts and Walt Disney World) were also revived and have now become part of the Amusement Park WikiProject as task forces. If you would like to remain listed as a member on these WikiProjects please re-add your name to the appropriate lists at the participants page. All names currently on the list have been cleared. If you have any queries, please do not hesitate to contact me directly. Thank you for your cooperation, Themeparkgc  Talk  08:17, 6 November 2010 (UTC).

Mustang[edit]

Oh, what year? I own a 1997 mustang and my husband has been driving it. I've driven it some, but having a 2 year old...

I have to have a car that she can get in and out of. 72.148.31.114 (talk) 07:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi! A request for your input[edit]

Per wp:CANVASSING, this is a neutrally worded notice being sent, without any type of "selection" bias, to everyone that edited fairly recently the MOS page about how to term the Latter Day Saints denominations on Wikipedia in the belief that your various and collective expertise or expertises, if that's a plural, can help us improve its wording, if possible. a bit. The most pertinent section is here. And the issue is to what degree the terms "Mormon church" and "LDS church" relate to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, in specific, and to what kind of sourcing should be used to document this. Thanks, if you find time and the interest to look into the matter and offer your opinion or commentary.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 23:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank You for the Wikipedia Picture[edit]

Hello, My name is Duane Hurst and I recently made a free (non-commercial) English web site to share information with people. I added links to your Wikipedia/Wikimedia freeware picture. I also gave credit to you on my web pages for your work. Thank you for sharing with the public. My website is:

http://www.freeenglishsite.com/

I add pictures such as yours to one of the following major sections of my site: 1. World section - contains information and over 10,000 images of every world country and territory. Link at: http://www.freeenglishsite.com/world/index.htm

2. USA section - contains information and images of every USA state and territory. Link at: http://www.freeenglishsite.com/world/usa/index.htm

3. English section - "Mel and Wes" lessons in conversation format. Stories are located in various USA states and world countries such as China, England, Germany, Japan, Mexico and Thailand. Each lesson has many slang terms and idioms, which I link to my Slang Dictionary. This eventually will have over 5,000 terms. Currently, it has about 3,000 slang and idioms. I regularly add new lessons and slang terms. Link at: http://www.freeenglishsite.com/english/lessons/index.htm Slang Dictionary link at: http://www.freeenglishsite.com/english/slang/Eslang_a.htm

Prior to retirement, I taught English at several private and public universities in the United States.

Please share this free site with your friends. I hope all will enjoy the pictures and find the English information useful. Sincerely,  Duane Hurst in Utah, USA

Email address: duanerhurst@freeenglishsite.com --75.169.8.9 (talk) 16:45, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:List LDS Temple California Map[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:List LDS Temple California Map has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.

Template has been unused for some time. All pages that used this template were moved to Template:List LDS Temple USA Southwest Map. In a nutshell it is obsolete.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 19:00, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of United Church of YHWH for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article United Church of YHWH is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Church of YHWH until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Dougweller (talk) 17:09, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation[edit]

Your upload of File:BlankMap-USA-states-west-UT-CA.png or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 13:37, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Another one of your uploads, File:BlankMap-Australia.png, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 13:42, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Another one of your uploads, File:BlankMap-Asia.png, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 13:45, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Another one of your uploads, File:BlankMap-USA-Utah.png, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 13:45, 12 February 2014 (UTC)