There is a proposed merge that I think would interest you at Talk:Limited geography model#Several merge proposals - my take. I am posting this notice because I saw that you were a recent editor at one of the pages listed below:
- Limited geography model
- Proposed Book of Mormon geographical setting
- Archaeology and the Book of Mormon
Changes in Mormon articles
Welcome to Wikipedia, BOMC,
I've left this message on David Whitmer and Three Witnesses: "BOMC has recently made a number of edits without citing WP:RS to back the changes. He has also refused to discuss the edits on this talk page."
Anyone can edit Wikipedia, but editors need to cite reliable sources and to discuss controversies on article talk pages. I'll be happy to engage you there.--John Foxe (talk) 18:13, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- @BOMC: I apologize for butting in here, but I was planning on leaving a little note here anyway. I've been watching the events at David Whitmer and Three Witnesses for a couple of days, and I wanted to thank you for your constructive edits. I haven't looked closely enough at the content to see any specific problems, but apparently John Foxe has. You'll have to forgive him for repeatedly reverting your edits. He's a little trigger happy that way, and it's an old habit, but he means well. It looks like he has started new sections on the article discussion pages now, and I'd encourage you to participate in those discussions. Make sure to ask him specifically what the problems are. If, after some discussion, you feel like things come to a stalemate between the two of you, and that you need a third opinion on something, feel free to say so in the discussion, send me a note, or post your problem at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement. ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- No problem. I expect that John will point out that for Wikipedia purposes, secondary sources are usually better than primary. The best of luck to you. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
I made some changed to your resent edits to the infobox on David Whitmer. Because of the issues you are having with John Foxe, I wanted to explain myself to you so that there is no confusion as to my motive vs his. My reason for making the changes have nothing to do with the issues listed above. I would hate for my changes to seem like I was taking any side here regarding the changes you made.
These are the changes I made to the infobox only and why:
- Removed "Elder", "High Priest" and "Baptized" sections. Historically and per Template:Infobox Latter Day Saint biography these sections are limited to "General authority" positions, not "Elder" and "High Priest" positions. I have however, added a "Baptized_date" section in the personal information section. This is something that probably should be included there.
- Very well and I appreciate the professional way with which you made the adjustments and filled me in. I do have two concerns with the preceeding paragraph reg. Elders and High Priests at that time being excluded from your G.A. definition. Also, for Whitmer, being an "Elder" was the high calling in the beginning with Joe and towards the end of his life. I think that difference should be reflected and if a template adjustment is needed or a better one better suited then we should not hesitate to accomodate this man and not make is life fit it. It's upsetting how neglected his page has been. I want to help do it justice, nothing more and nothing less. Btw, thanks for adding the collapsing div. That may be applied also to the Religious Beliefs section when it grows into the hundreds.
- Re-separated the President of the Church (Church of Christ—Whitmerites). The two sects are distinct individual sects and he held this position twice. They should not be listed together. See (List_of_sects_in_the_Latter_Day_Saint_movement#Church_of_Christ_.28Whitmerite.29)
- Okay, actually it would not allow to list more than nine, so that's what got left out.
- Moved "Founding Church Member" and "Book of Mormon Witness" into the "Known For" as these are not "Positions or Quorums" (as above) However, he is known for this things so you are correct they should appear somewhere.
- He is and should be remembered as a BoM witness above everthing. Should that go at the top? I think so. Consider what can be done to highlight this uniqueness.
- Put Back "Apostle". It is cited that he was an Apostle and it should be included per Template talk:Infobox Latter Day Saint biography (see Removal of Apostle Fields).
- That needs to be footnoted as there is much to be learned of the differences between then and now. It is good in any case to be placed down the list and NOT at the top since Whitmer was against the calling of apostles.
- Moved "Ordained Successor of Joseph Smith" into the "ordination_reason1" for "President of the Church". Again this is not a General authority position. It is also kind of a duplication of "President of the Church", but it was the reason that the Church of Christ—Whitmerites was formed.
- Those were two different events in fact. One was widely known when it happened, the other not. Also, Whitmer was agaist being called "president" and the whole concept. Rank in callings was different for him after her left Mormonism. The highest calling (if you must use that vernacular) was "first elder", "second elder." I will verify whether he referred to himself as "president" at the last organizing. Again, he was specifically against those callings and vernacular so why place it on him on the last organizing?
- Put items in "Reverse Chronological Order". It has been discussed in the past, on the template talk page, that the preferred listing is in Reverse Chronological Order" as this normally puts the "Highest position" obtained at the top. See Thomas S. Monson
- Yes, thanks.
I have also change how the information is feed to the page. This should have been done long before since David Whitmer has Template:Latter Day Saint biography/David Whitmer. The reason for that page is so that changes are reflected on all the pages when they are made at a single location and then all the lists and pages that David Whitmer appears on update automatically, such as Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. I don't know why this wasn't done a long time ago.
I am very very open to your input and have learned alot from your changes. If you don't like something please let me know, I would love to figure out how to improve this page.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 15:58, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Notice of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--John Foxe (talk) 15:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- BOMC, I have commented again on the noticeboard, recommending that you take a fresh start at the Three Witnesses article. You know a lot more now than when you started out, and I'm sure you'll do a much better job. One trick I've learned is that you can use the diff view of the latest revert to help you remember what you've done, and you can even copy and paste from that if there are large sections you don't want to re-write. You should probably be a little more careful if you want to remove cited material, and it wouldn't hurt to leave a note on the talk page saying why you're removing it. I've found, however, that if a citation is good, it's usually easiest to keep it. I realize this is creating more work for you, but would that be something you'd be willing to do? ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:27, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- I used Primary Sources and Secondary Sources as per wiki terms. You should be more specific in your attack as terms are relative.BOMC (talk) 20:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- I was not attacking you, I was in fact trying to be helpful. Now I shall not bother. Good luck.
Invitation to comment at Three Witnesses#Proposed
Hi BOMC, I invite you to comment on the proposed edit at Three Witnesses#Proposed on the article's talk page. You had made a number of changes to the Three Witnesses article, but that approach apparently did not work as they were reverted en masse by John Foxe. So, I thought taking the edits to the talk page one by one would help in getting at least some, if not all, of the edits into the article. I tried to facilitate the first one a couple of days ago, but you seem more knowledgeable than me in this area and since you initiated the edits, you may be best to comment on why the edits should be included in the article. I hope to see you there! Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 21:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your fair input at Three Witnesses. May I say it is really cool to find a non-affiliated Christian who believes the Book of Mormon. As I have read it I have often questioned it as one might question any other historical text or writing. I came to the conclusion that while many have strained for the gotcha criticism, I don`t see it as anything short of a brilliantly inspired text. Even if I were to believe Mormonism were false, I couldn`t help but confess that book is genius. Interconnecting complex plot lines and civilizations, enduring doctrines, the scope of characters, the variety of writing styles, recurring themes, even the uniquely original syntax. The only authors who come close are Isaiah, Tolkien, Shakespeare, or the team of translators of the KJV. Those who dismiss it so early, in my opinion, reveal either a cynical judgmental bias, or a shallow approach to literary criticism.
Anyway, I just wanted to say, cool! Interested in other religious writings you might recommend.
A bowl of strawberries for you!
|I wanted to say thank you for your helpful additions to the David Whitmer article, especially the amazing table of interviews you created. I appreciate your hard work. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC)|