User talk:BoNoMoJo/archive 01

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

Welcomes[edit]

A belated howdy! --mav

Welcome to Wikipedia! We need articles on all religious views here, so it helps when an adherent shows up to straighten everything out. Also, please see my suggestion about titles for articles relating to your church. --Ed Poor 15:50 Dec 5, 2002 (UTC)


Origin of username[edit]

I think I finally figured out your user name: a reference to pro bono plus 'mojo' meaning major or a lot. Do you do a lot of pro bono legal work? --Ed Poor
Hehe clever analysis. It's just fun slang that I made up. BoNoMoJo = "good charisma/karma" as in Latin word bonus (in ablative case) and the slang usage of mojo. BoNoMoJo
My wife suggested that my nick may give the wrong impression. So, I've decided to sign my posts simply as "B". B

Figuring out who the amiable wikipedians are[edit]

Another frequent contributor to religious topics, who you'll surely be bumping into, is Mkmconn. My impression is "Knowledgeable; fair; affable". Q

That's right, he and I had an exchange on the Christianity page and his contributions appear to fit that impression. I'll add him. I've been wondering if it might be a good idea to select a few pairs of user characteristics that could be listed on a user's page. These characteristics would be continually calculated by how other registered users measure the user's contributions to the site. Maybe I'll make a proposal after some more thought. B

Alamo pics[edit]

What's the building behind the Alamo (if you know)? I heard there was development all around it. --KQ

I don't recall. The Alamo is right in the middle of downtown San Antonio so there are lots of buidings around. Another interesting feature of San Antonio is the River Walk; the Paseo del Rio winds through San Antonio lined with restaurants, stores, etc and people sitting outside enjoying themselves. It's quite a lively, fun place at night.
Ok then, thanks. --KQ

Using "Revisionist" not meant to be POV[edit]

Re: LDS. It was not my intention to use "revisionist" as a word of judgement. I meant it as an accurate representation--- In retrospect, the word "corrective" would be more accurate. I have no particular contention with the Church; I do believe there should be an up-front notation that LDS is not a traditional Christian denomination. Thank you for the note. ---BarkingDoc

Thanks for the input. I've made a change that should work well. B


Chichen Itza pics[edit]

Hello, thanks for the Chichen Itza images. A question, though: do they seem dark on your monitor? Some of them are quite dark on mine, and I wondered if that was your intention. Not one to "push" photos unless asked, Koyaanis Qatsi

No, sorry, I didn't mean to criticize you. First, especially between macs and PCs (in my experience, anyway), what looks great on one screen can look too dark or too light on another. And, second, I take a lot of dark, heavily saturated photos myself, on purpose, and they sometimes get "pushed" when I drop them off at some developer's. Pushing a photo just means that you develop it as if it were a different speed than it is. If you shot some or all of a roll as a stop or more below what it should be to meter correctly, the developer can leave it in longer so the photo is lightened. It weakens color intensity but brings out more detail; it also brings out a lot of film grain. I've had it happen more than once, never when I asked for it. Speaking of which, there's an article! I think I still have the photos for it, even.  :-) Koyaanis Qatsi
No offense ever taken. Thanks for explanation. B

Space Shuttle Columbia disaster[edit]

I believe Ramon was the payload specialist


Naming convention (aircraft)[edit]

Hi BoNoMoJo, thanks for your note. I think you raise a very good point. In fact, it's one that I intended to bring up with the other people who do the aircraft pages, as I think that there is good reason to consider adopting a convention. I can find no evidence that there actually is a convention, however. If there is, then it's a secret one that does not appear in Wikipedia:Naming conventions, and is largely honoured in the breech. In combat aircraft alone, consider: Avro Vulcan, Avro Lancaster, Bristol Beaufort, Bristol Blenheim, De Havilland Mosquito, Dornier Do 17, Heinkel He 111, Martin B-10, Shorts Stirling, Vickers Wellington, Vickers Valiant, BAE Nimrod, Arado Ar 80, Avro Arrow, Bachem Ba 349, Bristol Beaufighter, Dassault Mirage III, Eurofighter, Focke-Wulf Ta 154, Fokker D.VII, Fokker Dr.I, Gloster Meteor, Hawker Hurricane, Hawker Typhoon, Hawker Siddeley Harrier, Heinkel He 112, Heinkel He 162, Macchi C.202, Mitsubishi Zero, Messerschmitt Me 163, Messerschmitt Me 210, Messerschmitt Me 262, Curtiss P-40, Republic P-47, Panavia Tornado, Sopwith Camel, Supermarine Spitfire and Westland Whirlwind. The proper name to use for the U-2 is a bit of a puzzle: it's just about always called "Lockheed U-2" or just plain "U-2", and the latter seems too short and ambiguous to be practical. Either, however, is superior to the asinine "Dragon Lady" - which in any case is so little used that I don't think I'd ever heard of it until yesterday (and I'm not unfamilar with aircraft names in general or the U-2 in particular).

This leaves a question hanging: should we adopt a convention for aircraft names? And if so, what one? I'll bring this up in a more appropriate place a little later on. Tannin 17:08 Feb 4, 2003 (UTC)

Ahh - Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (aircraft). I didn't find that one. Slip over there and see what you think. Tannin

Didn't mean to target only my edit regarding the same error[edit]

LOL. Good point. I'd only noticed the one I was changing because it had been in the Diff. I should have checked the whole page. Sorry. -- Zoe


Why certain wikipedia functions are not available[edit]

Many special page functions have been disabled for much of each day for performance reasons. Page counters have been eliminated from at least en.wiki due to their very significant performance hit (there is talk about relacing the dumb page counter with something smarter based on access logs). When the performance issues are fixed then the special pages will be available for longer periods (perhaps all day). --mav 23:19 Feb 7, 2003 (UTC)


Whether KJV is official LDS canon[edit]

Re: a recent Sacred text edit

(This is purely my own opinion/conclusion...) Wouldn't it be more accurate to just say LDS believe the Bible or Christian Bible? English speaking members definitely use the KJV, but what about other languages? In French, for example, they use the Louis Second.

If the Church specifically canonized the KJV, then why not translate the KJV into other languages? I think it's more accurate to say that the church believes in an "ideal" Bible that happens to not be on Earth, so it approves versions from among the most faithful versions available. Let me know what you think. Q

I'm having second thoughts on this because I'm sure the Church has taken a vote to canonize the KJV as part of the "standard works". The members know though that the KJV is far from perfect, and Joseph Smith himself preferred the German version to the KJV. Your point about other translations is still valid, of course. B 19:54 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Wikipedian likes my re-editing of Papal misconduct to soften the tone[edit]

On the recent change to Apostolic succession: I think this is a big improvement. (And more accurate anyhow; surely the doctrine is the general principle, and not that such-and-such a pope is the culprit.) --Tb 19:21 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)


Please add to list of philosophy and religion articles when making a new article[edit]

Hello. When you create an article on philosophy, could you add a link to it to the list of philosophical topics? (E.g., ontological relativity.) (And similarly with the list of religious topics.) Michael Hardy 21:02 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)


Getting scolded for adding entire text of King Follett speech to that article[edit]

On the King Follett speech, see Wikipedia is not, item 14. And that's "Ma'am" if you don't want to call me by my given name. Vicki Rosenzweig 22:40, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Vicki is right - please don't post lengthy source material on Wikipedia. Quotations in the context of an article are OK, though.—Eloquence 22:45, Aug 5, 2003 (UTC)


Checking in and sympathy for my broken wrist[edit]

Hi B. Thought I'd stop in and see what's up around here. I'm still taking a break from here, but I wanted to leave my regards. Sorry about the wrist. That sounds painful. Q, 13 Aug 03


A tip on how to see a user's contributions[edit]

Hi :) Tip, if a user hasn't created a user page yet and you want to see their edits, after you click on the user's name and you get to the edit-a-page page, remove the &action=edit section and then you should be able to get at their User contributions link...HTH Dysprosia 13:52, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)


Invitation to Wikilegal[edit]

Wikilegal-l is a new mailing list dealing with legal issues. You can sign up for it here. Regards,-戴&#30505sv 06:37, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)


Request for expert opinion on a legal article[edit]

Ah-ha! Finally some one here who can't claim "IANAL." Nice work on Article Four of the United States Constitution! If you're so inclined, do you think you could take a look at what I wrote on the Full Faith and Credit clause article? Thanks either way, Paige 05:28, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)


Question about a wikipedia feature[edit]

I am curious to know if there is a way to look at all articles about religious subjects/mythology (or any other subject for that matter). The "all pages" feature (that is disabled) is nice but like Googling takes so much time. I'd like to do more contributing of other religious pages, since that is my background, and it would be nice to see them all in one setting to watch more easily. If you know, that would be great - if not, I'll keep Googling and compiling in the effort to create such a page for others. Visorstuff

As you know, I'm compiling a list of pages about various religion groups, including Scientology, Catholicism, Mormonism, etc. Would love your help qualifying/organizing the List of articles about Mormonism when you get a chance. Visorstuff 23:30, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Book of Mormon[edit]

Do you really think it's neutral to have all the criticisms of the Book of Mormon on a separate page?—Eloquence 02:51, Dec 8, 2003 (UTC)

This discussion is taking place at Eloquence's talk page. Post messages on that topic there.


About Hawstom[edit]

Hi, B. Well, I am a sixth-generation Mormon; raised in Mesa, Arizona. How's that? Hawstom 20:11, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Ok. I'll add that to your user page. B 20:17, Dec 11, 2003 (UTC)

There now. I added some more just for you. :-D


Book of Mormon Controversies article[edit]

Hey, B. Can we chat a little here about the Book of Mormon controversies page? I have a definitely apologetic bent, and so I am a little mystified by some of your reactions to my attempts to organize the page.

A little history: I'm a way new Wikipedian, but a few months (?) ago the whole BofM thingie was a mess. It was way beneath the dignity of an encyclopedia. So I dived in an made some brave and foolhardy changes, some of which were good, including a massive reorganization of the Book of Mormon controversies page, which had digressed into, quite simply put, a mud-fight. In my mind the Book of Mormon controversies are really quite simple. One of these times I might summarize them in the vernacular on the talk page. The current hierarchy of the Controversies page is my doing, so you can talk with me about the idea.

One of the problems in converting the mud-fight into a respectable article was that some of the arguments seemed way out in left field. For example, what does the current LDS teaching on the Godhead have to do with the BofM? Nothing. Nevertheless, I am only foolhardy and not a masochist or a vandal, so I kept all the arguments and tried to dress them up respectably. One of the Wiki principles I read is that absurdity sometimes is best displayed by treating it respectably in an article. So I tried stating the obviously foolish premise behind the arguments: Some critics claim that the light treatment of BofM by LDS casts doubt on BofM. And so forth with other more tenuous connections on the page.

You might notice and agree that the current page hierarchy also begs the question of why critics have not spent more time developing their preferred explanation for the origin of BofM. The hierarchy makes it clear that the following vernacular argument is at the root of all BofM controversy.

That Joe Smith and his Gold Bible! You know as well as me that there weren't any angels nor gold plates. Never been such a thing since the Bible. You know old Joe was a gold digger and never could hardly read or write. Who knows where he got that book, but did you ever hear such cockamamie stories? Chariots, horses, Jesus in America, generals and captains. And it isn't even written in correct English. I even heard it says the Indians are lost tribes of Israel. Gufawwww!! In any case, I wouldn't pay any attention to it. Those Mormons have made 561.362 changes since it came out word for word from Old Joe Smith. And they still don't believe in it. Did you know it says in two places God hates polygamy? Har Har Har. I doubt old Joe could have written anything himself. He probably got one of his educated buddies like Cowdery or Rigdon to write it for him, and I'll bet he couldn't even think of an original story--probably stole half from the Bible and half from some other books nobody ever heard of.

Having said all the above, I would ask you to reconsider the tone you used in calling into question my edits. And would you be interested it exploring this idea further? --Hawstom


Norwikian's condesending European prattle...Zzzzz (that's me snoozing)[edit]

Hi Mister BoNoMojo i deleted my comments just to placate you! One sure thing i have learnt from Wikipedia is that the Unilateralist perceptions of Americans really cannot tolerate and even hate any criticism of their country whatsoever !!! I suggest you read my page Sir Thomas Browne on America to learn how Europeans have long since perceived certain aspects of the good ol' U.S ambitions.Norwikian 05:21, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

This is just to remind you Mr. BoNoMoJo that democracy , that is the right of all to free speech was an ancient Greek concept and is not copyrighted or exclusive to the U.S. Norwikian 02:35, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Your contemptuous header confirms my suspicion that many Americans barely listen, yet alone respect the views of others. You appear to be devout, just ask yourself this question did Christ instruct Nations to arm to the teeth to defeat all cultures they do not tolerate, or ask us to forgive our enemies, as I forgive you for your blatant uniltateralism and for holding the delusion that America is in charge of the world. Norwikian 02:49, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I am still looking for a single interpretative fact in your writings but all i can find is regurgitated facts, please point me to an interpretative fact you've made. Norwikian 02:55, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Sorry to read of your injuries, as a hospital worker in Casualty I can at least sympathise with this aspect of your condition, but then again the arrogance of your subheading betrays your humanity. Norwikian 02:58, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)


More of Norwikian's childish behavior...Zzzzzzz[edit]

You are just wasting everyone's time with your petty prejudices. Library of Sir Thomas Browne received far more votes to keep than to delete many months ago, which I doubt you checked and i also doubt if you will have any luck with your highly subjective prejudices about Sir T.B. on America either, probably what he has to essay cuts a raw nerve with you, what will you do, try to delete from history a 17th century European physicain and philosopher, grow up ! When in doubt with something you don't understand simply vote to delete , a stereotypical psychological weakness is exposed here i fear, Norwikian 02:13, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

It ain't me behaving childishly, take another look at your headings you've written, you clearly somehow feel threatened by things you do not comprehend (also i'm fairly confident that I'm a quite a few years older than yourself). You never checked to read the VfD discusion about Library of Sir Thomas Browne before voting its deletion, or did you  ? Why you don't want an encyclopaedia to include a 17th c. European scholars observations upon the early evolution of your home Nation is beyond me; please at least attempt to understand culture beyond the confines of your own little world. It would be most helpfully constructive if you would elaborate objectively on just WHY exactly you deem these pages to be deleted, other than allowing subjective factors to influence you. What kind of a Christian are you?Norwikian 16:17, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Embarrassed, hell no! I just tend to eliminate statements made on my talk page by those who are clearly out of their depth in certain highly specialised spheres of intellectual history or have a subjective viewpoint coloured by religious beliefs that's all! Library stays, On America can too or shift to sub-section, but perhaps we'd best let others decide on these matters and be democratic about it.Norwikian 08:17, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)


Missing Links[edit]

I've noticed that the four or five people who regularly contribute to Mormonism pages have the tendency to leave Wiki links in for pages/concepts that we feel need to be addressed, but fail to create the page that the link points to.

I propose that we clean this up. I've compiled a list of pages that need to be added or unlinked. Going forward, if you add in a link for a page that you intend to create, please create a stub page and fill in the basic info or bullet outline of what you feel it should cover and then include it on the List of articles about Mormonism so we can all contribute and finish the pages quicker.

I’ve included a reference page for each subject/blank page, however, I found at least two or three similar Wiki links (or reference pages) that point to the same subject/blank page for most of the links. Visorstuff 22:31, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)


Link to my talk page and comments on Mormonism naming covention[edit]

Your lazy correspondent would appreciate a "Leave a message" and a Talk Page link on your personal page. -Hawstom

There is no need for that. A link to a user's talk page is automatically created for every user at the bottom of the user's page. I moved your comments about the Naming conventions (Mormonism) to it's talk page here. You should be discussion the convention there where it is relevant, not here on my talk page. B 01:27, Dec 19, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't realize the Discuss This Page led to Talk. I am so embarraseed ;). Hawstom 21:10, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)


Attaboy on Mormon[edit]

Great work reworking the Mormon article! I thought it was a bit rambling and unwieldy, and your work is very helpful. Hawstom 21:08, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)


Formulating a Controversies Convention[edit]

B, please come on over to User_talk:Eloquence and help us think through a convention for dealing with controversies. (Should I perhaps start a page for this topic?) Hawstom 08:41, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)


Please review Mormon perspective on Israelite article[edit]

Hi. Could you take a look please at some of the recent additions to Israelites, particularly regarding the Mormon perspective. I don't know enough about it to comment, but it seems like something you could fix. Thanks and Happy New Year. Danny 10:56, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)


Golden Plates Article Superfluity[edit]

B, where do you think I should have put that info I put on the Golden Plates article? And thanks for the help with the Cowdery article. Hawstom 22:25, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)


edits on Church of Christ article[edit]

B, thanks for reversing the edits on the LDS Church of Christ page, but now the first paragraph has ended up as a hack job again. In trying to accomodate edits, I'm afraid we've ended up with a most un-encyclopedia-like first paragraph/sentence. Hawstom 23:25, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)


Sonia Johnson, feminist ex-Mormon[edit]

B, I saw you added that list of controversial ex-Mormons or Mormon critics, and it reminded me of a book I read years ago. I can't recall her name, but htought I'd ask the question to see if it jogged your memory: who was the woman who fell out (quite publicly) with the LDS Church over feminism and the Equal Rights Amendment? I thought of adding her name to the list, but can't recall it, and yet I seem to remember she even has an appropriately small WP article. Anyway, just thought you might remember where my brain is faulty. :) Best wishes, Jwrosenzweig 23:18, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Sonia Johnson -Visorstuff 01:06, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)


Mormon as an adjective[edit]

Hi, B. I'm back for some light editing, as you may guess. RE: "Mormon Church", I think "chagrin" is too strong of a word. Also I wonder if readers will just be puzzled about why there are things like "Mormon Tabernacle Choir" but "Mormon Church" is offensive. It's a useful topic, but I'm not sure we can do it justice in the title paragraph without bogging it down. Thoughts? Q 04:41, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)