User talk:ChristensenMJ

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


Hello, ChristensenMJ, 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:

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Eustress (talk) 19:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


BYU Hawaii spelling[edit]

The article for this entity is currently at Brigham Young University Hawaii, without a hyphen or an en-dash between "University" and "Hawaii". For this reason, the name should be spelled like this on the article page and at Church Educational System as well. If that's incorrect, then efforts should be made to change the article name of Brigham Young University Hawaii before the change is made in the text of articles. One way or the other it should be consistent throughout articles. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

FYI, BYUH is not hyphenated (see BYUH homepage) while BYU-I is hyphenated (see BYU-I homepage). Please keep the Wikipedia naming conventions in accordance with the official formatting. --Eustress (talk) 00:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
So why aren't they consistent? (talk) 07:50, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the question, Noting that the comments made were well over 6 years ago, the wp articles without a hyphen were not correct, so just required the updating of the articles that didn't include a hyphen. ChristensenMJ (talk) 16:40, 19 October 2015 (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 16:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

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

April 2009[edit]

Information.svg Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from File talk:President Bush meets with First Presidency of LDS church May 2008.jpg. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Eugene Krabs (talk) 14:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Sustained vs ordained dates[edit]

Nice job on your ongoing correction of the ordination vs sustaining dates of the LDS Church apostles and other GAs. There's a lot of misunderstanding about the difference and the articles have not been good on establishing the different dates. When I originally added the template boxes I think I just used the dates that were stated in the articles, but they were almost always the same date (the sustaining date). Thanks for doing that work. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

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

CES Board Changes[edit]

Hello, As you are probably aware, Steven E. Snow has been released from the Presidency of the Seventy and will be appointed Church Historian and Recorder in October 2012. This means, I'm sure, that he has been relieved of his responsibilities as a member of the Church Board of Education. Since you seem to have inside information about the Board, I am wondering who has/will replace him on the Board. Please find out soon if you can, and post the changes on Church Educational System. Thanks in advance. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 06:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi! It's been a while since we had opportunty to check in! I hope all is well with you. Yes, Elder Snow's new assignment did relieve him of his service on the Boards of Trustees/Education. The Officers of the Board have not yet formally announced his replacement, but I will definitely update the information when it becomes effective. ChristensenMJ (talk) 15:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Hartford Conneticut Temple[edit]

Don't know if you noticed, but on the talk page for the article List of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I started a new topic discussing the Hartford Connecticut Temple. Someone had claimed that the earlier announcement date for that temple should be included on the template. It was my feeling that mentioning the earlier date in the article for that temple was sufficient, and that the earlier date was irrelevant as far as the template was concerned. I requested comment, but no one has answered that request, so I thought I'd ask you to comment on the issue. I look forward to your input. Thanks. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 01:53, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi! You have been busy & doing a great job on the list of general authorities, area seventies, & temples. Thank you! As to the Hartford Connecticut Temple, I agree with you on the template listing. Having the history reflected in the article is sufficient for my feeling as well. I noticed a moment ago that the info in the article regarding the "recent" announcement is in bad shape - off badly on the date among other things. I will probably get to that tomorrow. Thanks for the question - that is my 2 cents worth! ChristensenMJ (talk) 14:19, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
a question for you......on the article for Thomas S. Monson, how do we change the text of the picture showing him greeting George W. Bush? It references Dieter F. Uchtdorf, but he is not in the picture. The person partially seen in the background is Brook Hales, secretary to the First Presidency. ChristensenMJ (talk) 14:19, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
yet another note - I agree with your change on the General Conference article about who presents the sustaining - had the same thought today, but ran out of time to update. ChristensenMJ (talk) 14:19, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't know how to change the caption on the photo. That will have to be left up to someone with much more WP experience than I have. Glad to see that you agree with the General Conference change. Hopefully my edit made it much more clear. Btw, in future, when I post a message on someone's talk page, I don't habitually check the same user page for an answer. Rather, I leave a request for them to respond on my talk page. It was only on a hunch that I checked your talk page today. So, in the future, if you have a response to my questions or additional questions to ask me, I'd appreciate it if you would post those on my talk page. That would be a lot more convenient for me. Thanks. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 00:10, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

General Authority Assignments[edit]

Thanks for updating Elder Zivic's assignment. However, I looked on and failed to find any mention there of his assignment. I see two other seventies (though I can't remember who) that are listed as Assistant Executive Directors of the Temple Department, but under Zivic's biography, that assignment is not listed. Is it possible that this was a previous assignment that he has now been released from? As soon as has an updated list of assignments, I guess we'll know for sure. Please respond on my talk page, as I don't habitually check other users' talk page for a response. Thanks. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 00:55, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

On the list we have, I see Elder Choi, Elder Zivic, and Elder Gibbons listed as Assistant Executive Directors of the Temple Department. So now my question is, who is the 4th person you spoke of? Also, on the list that you are taking this information from, does it contain any other assignments of general authorities that we can put on that page? Again, please respond on my talk page. Thanks. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 14:15, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
It seems you forgot to respond to the second question of my last post, so I'll ask it again: On the list that you got the information from about the Temple Department Assistant Executive Directors, does it list any other assignments for seventies that we don't have on the WP list? Any additional information you can contribute would be appreciated. Again, please respond on my talk page. Thanks. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 22:53, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
There are other changes, but we'll have to wait until they're officially announced? I really wish you hadn't said that. My curiosity is piqued. I won't ask what these changes are, much as I want to. You're probably not at liberty to say. One question I can ask: Where are you getting all this information? Do you by any chance have access to the CDOL? What Church position do you hold that allows you to be privy to this information? These are questions I feel I can ask. In the meantime, for the sake of my sanity, any additional information you feel you can give me, even if we have to wait until it's officially announced to list it here, would be appreciated. If you can tell me anything, I promise that I won't make it public. However, if you can't give me any more details until it's official, I understand completely. I am copying my comments here to my talk page, where I hope you will respond to this post as you have the past ones. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 23:40, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Reworded and copied from Talk: List of general authorities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: I notice that you claim that Elder Ringwood, formerly the First Counselor in the Asia North Area, is now the President, replacing Presiding Bishop Stevenson, and that Elder Yamashita, formerly unassigned, is the new First Counselor. I will be the first to admit that when it comes to inside information about general authorities, you have always been right. But I think that since changes in Area Presidencies have always been sourced in the past that this change needs to be sourced as well. I will leave it up to you to provide that source at your convenience. Exciting news! Do you have any insight as to who will replace Bishop Causse as First Counselor in the Europe Area? You can respond to this message either on my talk page, or the talk page listed above. Thanks for all your great work! --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 08:31, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

What is your rationale for chainging the Central America Area Second Counselor from Robert C. Gay to Kevin R. Duncan? The latest official source (the August Ensign lists Gay as the Second Counselor. Again, the issue is verifiability. And your source remains uncited. Please respond on the talk page for List of general authorities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Thanks. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 01:23, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi - --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable - we got caught in between edits here, so I'll type it again. I recognize the August Ensign lists the same information that the Church News gave back in May or so when the assignments were announced. A change was subsequently made in that assignment, so if you wish to wait until the Church may make a future annoucement in the Church News or other publication before making the change to Elder Duncan, that is fine. Thanks! ChristensenMJ (talk) 01:35, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Boise Idaho Temple: I goofed![edit]

I am posting this topic to invite you to comment on an issue I raised at Talk: List of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints about the Boise Idaho temple. I goofed, and no one has been kind enough to fix my mistake, and I don't know how to fix it myself. It's been posted for a while, but so far, I am the only one who seems to care about this problem getting resolved. Please help me if you can. Thanks. Post any comments you have on this issue on that page. Thanks again. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 00:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Emeritus General Authorities[edit]

In attempting to add the general authorities that received emeritus status to the emeritus section of the page, I goofed somewhere and got an error that I can't fix on my own. Would you take a look at it and help me fix it if possible? Post any reply to the appropriate talk page. Thanks. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 21:07, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Now all we need to do is find an updated list of general authority assignments. Please let me know if there is ever anything I can do to return the favor. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 23:48, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

We meet again[edit]

First Robert C. Gay, now Henry J. Eyring. Best I can see, I appreciate your good work. No interest in "getting the red out" by setting up an (as simple or as elaborate as you wish) user page? Just click that ChristensenMJ and you're off, as I imagine you may know. Anyway, my pref. All best. Swliv (talk) 18:19, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (LDS Church)[edit]

Hi, I hate to bother you, but do you have any references to prove this body is notable? This article has many serious issues, such as too many primary sources. When you took out the text and citations that I had added, you made the article much worse: it went back to lacking context, it was completely unreferenced, it had BLP issues, and the external links and single article reference were not inline. You see, without citations, there are many issues:

  1. We have no idea how to find the information again.
  2. We don't know if anything was plagiarized or in violation of copyright.
  3. The casual reader lacks any context for the data and theories in the article -- it was just a pretty bunch of factoids.
  4. We have no idea if the subject is notable - this is, objectively important.
  5. We don't know if the sources are reliable, and if so, independent and significantly covers the topic.

Please fix the issues tagged in the article, or please rebut my arguments with at least three of your own. If you need assistance, please contact me. Bearian (talk) 21:05, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments. I haven't done any research to provide any specific citations that would speak to the your question of whether this group is notable or not. It is one of the governing bodies of the LDS Church, which includes 14+ million members, and of course the recent Republican nominee for President of the U.S., Mitt Romney, along with a list of other notable people. I believe it would be hard pressed case for someone to try and desingate this as not being notable so as to qualify for article deletion. If there is a desire to retain the information you've included and draw the comparisons to the college of cardinals, I would suggest reviewing the area of the article that discusses succession in the presidency of the LDS Church and find a way to combine those - or at least put them in better proximity to one another. It's addressed in the area you've included, then several paragraphs later returns. It might be well to have those be more in sync. Thanks! ChristensenMJ (talk) 22:19, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Walter F. González[edit]

According to Changes to South America South Area Presidency to come, this change is not effective until January 6, 2013. Also, it has not yet been announced who will replace González in the Presidency. Accordingly, I have reverted your changes to González's article and have readded him to the current Presidency of the Seventy template. I suspect you might know who will replace González already, as you always seem to have inside information about these kinds of changes. But unless and until the change is official, it shouldn't be made. Sorry. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 00:58, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

No need to apologize! I appreciated the newsroom update that you included - I was only going by this link - - which says "has" been released. There are a ton of other changes that would need to be addressed and modified, given the known timing in January. ChristensenMJ (talk) 01:10, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I will rely upon you to make those other changes since I don't know what they would be. Thanks. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 01:35, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

An interesting (but very minor) issue[edit]

See here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Ah, that is an interesting point you've asked about! Good question. Knowing that not only the book cover showed it that way, but also with the differences between Latter Day Saint vs. Latter-day Saints, I hadn't made any connection for something different. Also, thanks for the clarification you made the other day on the Robert S. Woods article - indicating how we don't update direct quotes. I just know - which I probably learned, thanks in large part to your tutoring efforts (which is a great thing)- how "church" is normally reflected overall, but also with the sensitivity others have expressed when people try to note on LDS-related articles about "the Church."
Yes, any material that is directly quoted can be thought of as an exception to the regular WP conventions. We don't change the quotes unless there's a need to do so for some reason, such as eliminating an unneeded sentence with a "..." or similar. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Great, that's helpful! I am still a rather staunch novice at much of this, so thank you!! ChristensenMJ (talk) 01:42, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
You're doing great work, keep it up! Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:34, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Ha ha - no problem! When JGStokes did it, he left me a note that said he kept getting like 200+ years of service for MK Jensen, so I sorted it out, but only from copying one of the others that works! I haven't actually looked much at the "formulas" myself! ChristensenMJ (talk) 21:04, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Eldred G. Smith may get there yet. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
For sure!!! :) ChristensenMJ (talk) 21:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Request for help @ General Authorities page.[edit]

I have requested help at Talk: List of general authorities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Please help me and leave a response on that page if you can help. Thanks in advance. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 08:20, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


I am well aware of the MOS, but I don't think it's helpful to remove "president" from the Timeline articles, for the simple reason that many (most?) of the readers will not be LDS, and will not realise the significance of the person in question. In these terms there is a vast difference between someone who is an apostle or non-GA, and the president of the church to the organisation.--MacRùsgail (talk) 15:22, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the thought. I understand the principle you are referencing. In most cases, perhaps all, we'd have to check, it typically has indicated some had passed away and as a result, the next person became president of the church. I think that gives them enough context as to the significance of who passed away. What are your thoughts? ChristensenMJ (talk) 16:38, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


Editors Barnstar.png The Editor's Barnstar
For displaying particularly fine decisions in general editing. Keep up the good work! —Eustress talk 03:54, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your kindness! We all just keep at it together, don't we! ChristensenMJ (talk) 03:58, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

BYU Facial Hair policy[edit]

You deleted my addition to the BYU Honor Code page. As the policy regarding facial hair in particular allows for exceptions this information needs to be included in the article. The University has laid out procedures students and faculty must adhere to in order to receive the proper exemption. By laying out these policies here students and interested observers are made familiar with the steps one needs to take in order to receive an exemption. It is not long enough to merit its own article. If you would prefer to move the new excerpt into the "Enforcement" section that is definitely open for discussion. Simply removing it, however, is an arbitrary and unwarranted decision on your part. Thank you. MacamemeandCheese (talk) 21:24, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the comment. If you remember what Wikipedia is, an enclyclopedia of sorts, this is still far too detailed for inclusion in an article. The exception was summarized in sufficient detail. The procedures of getting an ID picture and all that sort of detail would never be included in a encyclopedia article. You are stretching to indicate it's unwarranted and arbitrary - no more so than including it, so keep it neutral! If you feel strongly about the need to help others out, perhaps you can include a link or reference to reflect the procedures. For now, I will assume you have restored it and I will probably head back over and remove it again, for the reasons stated. ChristensenMJ (talk) 21:32, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
To reiterate, facial hair exceptions are an area of Brigham Young University's honor code which have special provisions unlike any other element of the honor code. This fact warrants better description within an encyclopedic article. Your assertion to the contrary is a subjective judgment with which I entirely disagree. In my view, there was not sufficient detail in the article as it was in regards to obtaining an exemption. Having the procedure simply laid out in the wikipedia entry is very useful for those wishing to understand how exemptions might be obtained. Moreover, the procedure as described is in fact part of the honor code itself. I disagree with your reasons stated and I will add the section back in if removed. As I mentioned before, you might move it to the Enforcement section if you believe it to be better suited to that section. As for the information itself, however, it is entirely factual. You also accuse the inclusion of lacking neutrality. You accuse me of stretching things to demonstrate they are "unwarranted and arbitrary," but my additions say no such thing. In fact, they neutrally lay out the basic procedure--within the Honor Code itself--to obtain a beard exemption. If you believe the policies are unwarranted and arbitrary" that is your opinion, but my description of them is factually neutral.MacamemeandCheese (talk) 21:53, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
An apparent continued misunderstanding exists of the purpose and intent of articles. 21:56, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

After reviewing the edit again, I think you're right. It is too unwieldy for the honor code policy section, as it basically consists of a bullet-point list. Since the procedure for facial hair exemptions pertains more to Enforcement, and since the Enforcement section contains paragraphs rather than a bullet point list, this seems a much more appropriate location. I also trimmed the word count from 222 to about 130, making it smaller in context of the overall encyclopedia entry. In this way, the information about the exemption is still available, but not in a way that distracts from the overall content. I hope this is a sufficient compromise, and thank you for your attentive eye.MacamemeandCheese (talk) 22:25, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

This does seem to work much better. There is some confusion in the above comments about "unwarranted and arbitrary" portions - this wasn't to indicate that the content (assertions or policy) were not presented in neutral fashion - it had been indicated the removal itself was "unwarranted and arbitrary" - that was the part that needed to stay neutral, avoiding direct implications against another editor. As you noted, particularly with the bullet-point list, this was not a good placement and it was far too detailed for the setting and context. That prompted the removal - as I have absolutely no bias, as asserted above, which led to the removal. There was never any attempt to dispute the facts of the policy, one with which I am very aware, as I am with many CES policies. Thank you for the word reduction as well, it reads much better and more concisely. ChristensenMJ (talk) 01:48, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Emma Smith[edit]

I see you have stated that the church in 1838 was called The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This is historically inaccurate. The use of 'The' wasn't added by the Church in Utah until years later - same with 'Latter-day'. In 1838 the name of the church was Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, which is why many of the smaller branches of the Latter Day Saint movement continued to use this form of the name without the hyphen. Of course the current edition of the LDS D&C has been edited to reflect the name as current spelled. Best, A Sniper (talk) 00:34, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the update. Have a great day! ChristensenMJ (talk) 02:17, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Edward Dube[edit]

Thankyou for your constructive helps on the editing of the article on Edward Dube.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:19, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate the kind sentiment. Thank you as well for all your efforts, including creating the article and bringing more substance to it. You've been working hard on the First Vision as well today, thank you!! ChristensenMJ (talk) 04:22, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

BYU Rankings[edit]

Do you have any reputable sources beyond BYU's self-reported data? Self-reported data is not suitable for rankings. I know for a fact that AAMC doesn't publish a "top senders to medical schools" ranking anymore. I'm going to delete the part regarding medical schools as their ranking was removed in the 2010-2011 rankings. Jakebarrington (talk) 18:05, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the question / comment. While I haven't gone back to the original source in each case on the rankings information BYU has shared, you'll note that the original table given groups the claims asserted by the original source. Although summarized, perhaps more than just purely self-reported, that provides opportunity for interested parties to pursue the original source as desired. Given a good-faith effort to display academic honesty & integrity on the main website of a large university, it seems reasonable & fair to note the assertions, providing the source & let any reader pursue it further. As to your assertion regarding the medical school issue, the article already noted that such rankings were taken from 2008-2009, the claimed fact that these rankings were discontinued several years later doesn't change the nature of the stated ranking. That doesn't create a compelling case for removal. That being the case, I will reinstate the article as it was showing. Thanks for your efforts to help keep Wikipedia strong. ChristensenMJ (talk) 05:16, 28 April 2013 (UTC)


The problem is that this [1] Church News article just says he was a mission president, and this [2] listing of his call does not say where he is going. I have added the later, but we will need both references.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:04, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, that second link is a good part of what we're after - it does make it a bit more complex when their bio is published prior to the assignments being announced. Thanks!! ChristensenMJ (talk) 22:09, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Hmm, then I found this case [3] where in 2010 Jorge Miguel Alvarado was called from Puerto RIco to preside over the mission in Puerto Rico. This might be more common than we think.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:23, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree that particularly as the church has grown and matured in some of these other areas of the world, there is not only not a "need" for North Americans to go and preside, but that these men are ready and able to serve in their own areas. That is one of the reasons I was reticent to start trying to provide too many examples, or exceptions, because it's hard to track any and all circumstances (let alone perhaps not all that helpful to the article). ChristensenMJ (talk) 22:26, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Good point, but of couse most non-north American Mission presidents are not exceptions. Akingbode A. Ojo will be a Nigerian serving as mission president in Nigeria, but he is not from within the mission (he is from Calabar, which is is a mission headquarters, but will be serving in Benin City). Pretty much all the new mission presidents in Brazil, and most of them in Mexico, are from the country, but even the new mission presidents in Reynosa and Ciudad Juarez are coming from outside those mission, while it appears both are coming from within the boundaries of the mission those cities are currently in (they are among the 58 new missions). One possible way to have Hinckley, Joseph and Gamiette as justified examples is that Hinckley came from a country with lots of missions, so having a national as mission president does not require calling someone from within the mission, Joseph came from a one-mission country so to have a national as mission president you generally have to call from within the country (I guess they could call a Haitian temporarily resident in the US or other places though), and Gamiette presided over a mission that covered 10 or more countries, so it is a really complexed example, especially since technically Guadaloupe is part of France so if Gamiette had been sent as mission president to Paris he would be a national serving as mission president. The other factor that makes Gamiette slightly different is that while he was a native of Guadaloupe, his wife is a native of mainland France, whereas Joseph's wife is a native of Haiti.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:39, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Yep, agreed, the areas of growth and maturity referred to certainly don't include places like Mexico and Brazil, where the church has been 1) long established and 2) is of a size that allows for such events - not much different than a man from Florida being called to preside in Oregon. Isn't life great? For me at least, sometimes the more I take something that seems pretty straightforward and dig into it, I find it's not near as simple as it seemed!! And I always prefer simple! :) ChristensenMJ (talk) 22:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)


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

GA Page.[edit]

Hello. I got the note you left for me on the General Authorities talk page. My thanks for your thanks. I was wondering if you could help me with something. Shortly after merging the subpage with the GA page, I got a note on my talk page from a bot citing supposed errors with my edit. But I could not make sense of what the message was talking about. If you could check it out on my talk page and help me resolve the issues mentioned, I'd appreciate it. Once you have done so, please leave me a message either on the GA talk page or on my talk page as I don't habitually check other users' talk pages. Thanks in advance for any help you might be able to give me. ––Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 06:02, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi! Hope you are well!? I will try and have a look when I can. I actually have received some similar messages on my talk page for other edits the past couple of months, but when I go back and look I can't see anything either, so we'll see what we can find on yours!! ChristensenMJ (talk) 19:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Hey, it's me again. I was just at the General Authorities page and noticed (much to my frustration) that the ability to sort the tables by age, years served, name, etc. has disappeared. Do you know what happened and/or how to restore that feature? Thanks in advance for any help you might be able to give me on this. Please respond on the GA talk page. Thanks. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 06:39, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi - --Jgstokes - I actually saw your comment on the GA page a bit ago and went and tried it, it still appeared for me and worked just fine, so I am not sure what's causing your experience. ChristensenMJ (talk) 06:42, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Nice catch: As of date for Area Seventies[edit]

Hello. I wanted to drop a line and thank you for noticing I failed to update the date on the Area Seventies page even though I had updated the information. Not sure how I missed that, but grateful you caught it. Thanks for all your great work! --Jgstokes (talk) 07:09, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi! That's very kind of you, but good job on all your efforts! Thanks so much, Jgstokes!! ChristensenMJ (talk) 17:27, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

City Creek Center[edit]

FYI: [4]. I've pointed him to the talk page, where I see you've started a discussion. If he continues to make the edits without attempting to discuss or justify his edits, it will become obvious that he's just trolling. Good Ol’factory (talk) 18:43, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Sounds great. Thanks for your help. I started to add something to the user's talk page over the weekend, but got cut short on time. It also helps having another editor providing some counsel and observation. ChristensenMJ (talk) 19:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

BYU Honor Code Page[edit]

Re: The BYU Honor Code page... The standards section presents value based POVs. For example, words that describe certain lifestyles and behaviors as "appropriate", "indecent", "inappropriate", and "clean" are absolutely opinions and personal values that are not shared by everyone. This section would be fine if it were quoted verbatim from the honor code. However, it's not. The language could be made more neutral by saying "Living what the LDS church considers to be a chaste and virtuous life" for example. Now, the Conflict with Official Doctrine section... There are no opinions there. There is only the fact (from the honor code) that former LDS students cannot practice their new religion and still receive an endorsement, and only the fact (from official LDS scripture) that the LDS church claims the privilege of allowing everyone to worship however they may. There are no opinions there. You are free to continue reverting edits that aim to make the language more neutral and that aim to present controversial facts (but still facts) that are of important note, but I will continue to revert you and I will report you. Fix and improve the article if you don't like it. Don't just revert back to how you want it to be. It's not yours. It's not the LDS church's. It's everyone's and it needs to be neutral and present all sides. -PonderosaPineapple

Huh... You seem to patrol a lot of LDS-themed pages. Yet "I" have an agenda, or as you put it on the talk page, an axe to grind.

Seems like you have very large grounds to keep indeed. I'm in this for the long haul. Revert how you will, but I will continue to make sure the hypocritical, LDS-sourced facts get out there occasionally. Your friend, -PonderosaPineapple

P.S. Doesn't it concern you that the LDS church violates its own beliefs? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:55, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Revert of my Hamilton New Zealand Temple edit[edit]

You surely know more than I do of LDS, so I bow to your revert comment that "most positions shown not directly related to temple" wrt Douglas J. Martin. However some positions Martin held were in that temple & it seems to me that part can be retained as Martin seems to have been a pioneer in the NZ LDS church & certainly of the Hamilton New Zealand Temple. What do you think? --DadaNeem (talk) 05:29, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, DadaNeem! Thanks for the message. Of the assignments listed in the good faith sentence added, only the sealer is directly related to/associated with the temple itself. Of course, as noted, he was also the president. My thought is that this is really about notability, specifically to the temple, given the article's focus. For instance, he'd be one of many who have served as sealers over the years. Even as the president, where they typically serve for 3 years, he would be just one of many over the 55+ years the temple has been in operation. Although he was among the stalwart of NZ LDS Church leaders, to single him out in an article about the temple, lacks the notability for the addition. And just for full disclosure so it doesn't seem I am insensitive to his valuable contributions over the years, even though I have never been to NZ, I was actually married by Douglas J. Martin!! What are your thoughts? ChristensenMJ (talk) 05:50, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi ChristensenMJ. You're indeed more qualified than I thought to write on Douglas J. Martin!! My intent when writing of his relation to the Hamilton Temple was to make the articles mutually informative. Martin seems to have been a notable in the non-US LDS world so his relation to the Hamilton Temple, even tho humbler than his roles in the outside LDS world, even briefly alluded to, could inform a casual reader. A possible means: == Notables (or Associates) of the Temple == *[[Douglas J. Martin]], the first New Zealand resident to become a general authority of the LDS Church, was a stalwart of the Hamilton Temple from its opening in 1958.

Those interested in learning more could see then see details in Douglas J. Martin.--DadaNeem (talk) 06:26, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

The current article on Douglas J. Martin shows his notability was almost exclusively due to LDS Church involvement, including being the first NZ resident appointed as a church general authority. Again, as it relates to the temple article itself, there isn't anything particularly "noteworthy" in his contributions to the temple than there would be for many, many others who served in similar leadership capacities within the church. I would be more inclined to not include something specific to, or about, him. ChristensenMJ (talk) 06:39, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Michael Reed edits[edit]

I applaud your efforts to amicably explain to Michael Reed the reasons behind the objections that are being made. It seems that, short of providing their own defense of his edits, some users have instead chosen to nitpick about the way I phrase my objections. I hope you understand where I am coming from on this issue. I have asked Reed at least twice to provide one source, just one, that would bear out the claims of his book. So far, he has not chosen to do so. That is why my objections remain. I felt perhaps that you might be able to tell me if I am being unreasonable in my requests for an independent source that bears out what his book claims. I trust your judgment. If you could respond either on my talk page or on the article talk page itself, that would be much appreciated. Thanks for helping me in this matter. --Jgstokes (talk) 08:52, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Jgstokes! Yes, it seems there is - or at least was in the beginning - too much of users taking it personally and feeling that censoring and fabricating of rules was taking place. Based on responses, I still don't think it's understood. (Although slightly different in motivation behind the edits, I actually had a similar experience start at about the same time on the BYU Honor Code article.) I do understand where you are coming from. My guess is that there likely wouldn't be a statement per se from one of the brethren, other than some of those addressing the focus on the living Christ. I personally don't think the proposed edit adds to the value of the article, sourced or not, so it's hard for me to get too ramped up about it. I also think, as you may have read, that even if it's added, there needs to be improved npov writing. I don't see that inclusion of who may or may not have struggled with anti-Catholic feelings has any value, relevance or significance. Then with the single-focus that Reed and those he's recruited to help in the matter have it's hard to see where a reasonable discussion can take place. So, I don't know that I am really answering your question - if it were me, I probably wouldn't bear out a strong or unflexible stance, just because it's not going to go anywhere overall. Thanks for your continuing efforts! ChristensenMJ (talk) 22:15, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Jgstokes. I thought I would note something here in our conversation. I think what is being said on the Culture talk page about the Reed book overstates my position. As I noted above, I don't anticipate there would be a statement by any church authorities. I don't think it adds much to article and my primary issue was conflict of interest and self promotion, sockpuppet behavior, etc. - not any demand for something. I noted above that I wouldn't bear out a strong of unflexible stance because it's not going anywhere anyway. I have replied here in a good faith effort not to have to contradict your thoughts right on the talk page, to try and give you that opportunity to amend as needed. Thanks for all you do! ChristensenMJ (talk) 01:55, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
I kind of "changed my mind" and went ahead and added a brief note to the article's talk page. ChristensenMJ (talk) 02:58, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I wanted to thank you for your defense of me. While our viewpoints may differ on the Michael Reed edits, I greatly appreciate you sticking up for me. I stepped away from the conversation for a few days because I had other things to do than argue with Michael Reed. My latest stated opinion on the matter has been overlooked: that is, if the consensus (through straw poll) votes to include the material, I will stand by that consensus. I was shocked at Reed's request that I be blocked and was gratified that you put your two cents in for me. Thanks again, good friend. Now it seems that the material has been included in the article (after a fashion) and I have no objection to the way it currently appears. But I will not mention that on that particular talk page. Reed would only misconstrue and twist my words and request again that I be blocked. If you could reemphasis my latest stance on the issue, I'd appreciate it. Reed will likely take it better from you than he would from me. Thanks again! --Jgstokes (talk) 03:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

No problem at all. I was disappointed in the approach and words, which I believe still come largely from a lack of experience with WP. I make no claim to be all that experienced or have many of the answers, but this still primarily remains a single purpose account/focus by one user, or several users. I agree that there isn't any point to engage in the ongoing discussion or argument about it. With the information having been generally included now, as you noted, I don't anticipate anymore interaction on the page. ChristensenMJ (talk) 04:11, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Thomas S. Monson lawsuit[edit]

I am once again in need of your advice. In regards to the Thomas S. Monson lawsuit, the user that is pushing for the lawsuit to be mentioned in this article is disregarding cited sources and stooping to personal attacks. I thought of writing a reply to him but decided against it. It would only serve to rile him further. Since I am the one under attack here, I would ask for your help with this matter. I think if another user could substantiate my arguments while defending me, it might take the wind out of this user's sails. As it its, I feel all I can do for the moment is to step away from the subject for a time. I have put in my two cents. Now I need to leave it up to other editors to defend me and agree with me. I will still keep an eye on the discussion, but I feel that anything else I say would serve to inflame this user, and that's the last thing I want. Your help is greatly appreciated. If you could respond to this on my user talk page or the talk page for the Monson article, as I don't habitually check other users' talk pages, I'd appreciate it. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 03:40, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Jgstokes. Thanks for the message. I actually agree with your thought to just step away. You've had a chance to express your view, as I have also done. A single user pushing for inclusion isn't going to have a great impact when it seems the community is in favor of not including. I think there is wisdom in the saying "never reason with a drunk" - trying to convince some when there are clearly differing views doesn't often go too far. For now, I would just let it go and if there is a time a response is needed, as we keep it more "fact based" and address issues, rather than opinions or things that are pointed toward personal issues, it can help. ChristensenMJ (talk) 17:35, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
@Jgstokes: I agree with ChristensenMJ here. Sometimes it's better to just not respond and let an issue die on its own. If there's a serious attempt to include the material or new rational arguments presented, that can be responded to, but right now it seems like the talk page is being used more for soap boxing than actual reasons to include the material, and that is best left ignored in my opinion. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:34, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

CDOL and New General Authority Assignments[edit]

Hello. I hope things are going well for you. I have taken the liberty of creating a subpage for changes that will be effective in August 2014. It is located here. So I was looking through the list after making all the announced changes and seeing if I could find assignments for the "unassigned" brethren. So I looked at their bios on And it would appear that the Assistant Executive Directors of the Temple Department have changed, based on information available in the bios. I was wondering if you could confirm this information based on your access to the CDOL. Plus, if there are any assignments listed there that we don't have on the subpage, we can input them there as well. Any information you can provide would be helpful. Thanks for your cooperation and assistance. Best wishes! --Jgstokes (talk) 20:21, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Zwick's assignment as Mission President[edit]

I wanted to drop a line and thank you for your quick work in getting W. Craig Zwick's new assignment up on the List of general authorities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints page. I came onto Wikipedia to double check something based on other information I found in the Church News and stumbled across your edit. Sounds like he'll be busy for the next three years with that assignment. Also, I don't know if you got my last message, but I wondered if you could look that over and reply ASAP as I have been looking forward to your feedback. Thanks again. --Jgstokes (talk) 06:43, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Charles Edwin Shipp's edits on M. Russell Ballard[edit]

I am posting here to ask for your assistance with something. I have been working with Charles Edwin Shipp to try to substantiate the sentence he input from an introduction made at a recent CES fireside at which Elder Ballard spoke. It was said of him that much of his ministry has been focused on missionary work. I have been working with Charles to get him to substantiate this claim by citing some of Ballard's relevant General Conference addresses on the subject. He has done so, but I haven't had a chance to look them over or reply yet. I was wondering if you would be able and willing to work with us to get the content Charles desires into the Ballard article in a way that would not be a violation of Wikipedia policy. I hope you can help us. Thanks in advance. --Jgstokes (talk) 23:16, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I have some beginning experience in WP editing, approaching 5,000 edits in seven years. Recently, I had a minor comment from "Dr Jim" who has 100,000 edits! Anyway, reason I am mentioning this is I am an eager learner, my second hobby. I'm currently wondering if just one sentence is ample for the hallmark of his Apostleship(?) There are other aspects of his article/page that could be improved. I don't intend to do this for all twelve + three (general authorities) but I have been in Elder Ballard's home (Dad was his hometeacher) and in his office, (with his secretary, Sister Hyde) and may visit her this week, since we travel from L.A. this week to the annual Melaleuca Convention in SLC. There is a lot more I could say regarding WP editing and my views and will be taking your wise advise. -- Truly, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:50, 12 May 2014 (UTC) And Thanks In Advance (TIA).
Hello, Jgstokes and Charles Edwin Shipp. Thank you both for the efforts you make in strengthening Wikipedia, particularly in efforts toward the LDS Church. I realize the introduction at the recent CES Devotional, as well as the information listed for Ballard on, includes the sentence about his involvement in missionary work. It is true that having been an apostle for nearly 29 years, that he's had significant assignments related to missionary work. I probably just have a general aversion to trying to attribute specific areas of ministry and impact to those who are not the church's president. One could go through most church presidents and attribute some form of "theme" or "focus" toward their presiding stewardship, whether it be Benson's focus on the Book of Mormon or Monson's focus on rescuing. As the president sets the tone and direction of the church, I think we're hard pressed to try and get the other apostles out in front of the presiding officer. Apostles are involved certainly where some of their talents and skills are utilized best, but they are assigned there by the First Presidency. What about all of Ballard's focus on councils within the church, or significant time spent in CES assignments, or Public Affairs assignments, and the list goes on. Not only is it hard to nail down just a single area of focus or "much of his ministry" area and appropriately source it for WP purposes, I am just not sure it's a great idea. As you both know, these particular 15 men serve a unique role that is at the same time both very focused in its scope, but also by its nature ends up very broad. I don't think trying to isolate too much single purpose or focus serves that role as well as it should. I firmly agree with Charles Edwin Shipp that it would be wrong (let alone difficult) to try and do this for the 15 men spoken of, let alone all the other general authorities that serve in the church. So, that's my two cents at least for now as you go forward and consider how to best proceed. ChristensenMJ (talk) 04:52, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
I see your point, ChristensenMJ, and I thank you for it. My main object in inquiring of you as to how best to proceed was so as to not potentially hurt Charles Edwin Shipp's feelings by eliminating the sentence he felt was valid enough to include. I must say I much prefer your answer to the one that was given on the relevant article's talk page. So I guess the best course of action is to not try and establish a central focus of any given general authority's ministry unless and until they become the President of the Church. And even then it can sometimes be tricky pining down a central point of ministry focus when their ministry is not yet complete. Although I do agree that President Monson will likely be remembered for encouraging us to reach out and rescue, among so many other wonderful hallmarks. So I believe it will be best if we leave the sentence out, at least for now. I hope that won't offend you, Charles. In the meantime, Charles and Michael, I could use your help with something else. There are a number of new topics that have recently been started by me on the List of general authorities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints talk page. I would appreciate it if you both could examine the conversations and weigh in with your opinions. There has been a particular disagreement between myself and another editor about the notability of members of the Second Quorum of the Seventy that has left me quite frustrated. In a nutshell, I felt it was unfair to have articles for some 2nd Quorum members but not all, and his response was that some are more notable than others. But when I have asked how that can be, instead of answering, he just responds with "Unless they're transferred to the First Quorum, their notability generally only lasts a few years." One question I have asked him which I wanted him to take time to consider was what makes Tad R. Callister more notable than his older brother Douglas L. Callister. I know that Tad has served in the Presidency of the Seventy and is now serving as Sunday School general president, which does make him notable, but his older brother served faithfully in the quorum for nine years and later as a temple president. In my mind, one Callister is no less notable than the other. There's an article for Robert S. Wood, who was in the Second Quorum for 10 years and was later a temple president, but not for L. Edward Brown or C. Max Caldwell. Brown was a temple president after his release, and Caldwell is known and respected as a sealer and Church History scholar even though he passed away 2 years ago. In my mind, there's not much difference in notability. And I think it's very unfair to have articles for some Second Quorum members but not all, which is why I created 10 new articles for the currently serving Second Quorum members that didn't have one. Anyways, the long and the short of it is, I need you both to weigh in on this and other issues so that it's not just me and this other editor trying to figure out what the "fair" thing to do about each issue is. So if you could go review those topics and respond at your leisure, I'd appreciate it. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 06:47, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the response and associated thoughts, Jgstokes. I would not anticipate Charles will have his feelings hurt as everyone is acting in good faith. The only care that might be taken is to ensure we don't just use talk pages or articles to try and editorialize or have a subpage culture to many of the LDS-themed articles, for which people feel strong affinity and want to include additional "resources" or information. Next, I have glanced through the discussion you referenced on the talk page that has been taking place about the Second Quorum of the Seventy. If I could share a thought or two, one would be my own encouragement to retain a measured, balanced view and tone when inviting or responding to feedback. As the other user has indicated, this is not about him. He has indicated no concerns on his part about former general authorities having articles written about them, he's just indicating that others may have some concerns. Just be aware not to challenge an editor too directly as if he's got skin in the game, when that is not the case. You've both tried to address that & you've taken care to try and identify that you're not upset, but frustrated by what seems a different standard. I would also say that as you have done with the current members, feel free to create articles about others who have served. I think GoodOlfactory is just saying there may be some who challenge the notability. I think we have both seen and interacted with him as an editor enough to know the very balanced and fair view he brings to WP. I realize there are some/many who would say that just because someone is a general authority for a season does not automatically make them notable. I can appreciate that point of view, though I also don't see the harm in having the articles in existence. I sometimes think people are a bit quick on the trigger to nominate for deletion - but some of that also comes when essentially all/most of sources are from or about the LDS Church. A similar thing to consider or study is whether a comparable "level" of leadership in say the Catholic Church warrants an article for all who may be in those "callings" or positions. I don't know if it does or not and have never looked into it. The size of the Catholic Church by itself clearly creates an additional sense of notability when people rise to certain leadership roles, simply from the large number of adherents. A final side note I would share is that there is an article about L. Edward Brown. It's been in existence for perhaps as much as 7 years. I actually just made some edits there a couple days ago. A close friend of mine served under his direction in Korea when he was the mission president, so I knew that article existed (as the blue link in your comment reflects). So, I don't know that I am helping here at all - I would say feel free to create articles from Callister or Caldwell, but then be prepared to know that someone may challenge the notability if "all" they are known for is LDS Church service. Thanks so much! ChristensenMJ (talk) 08:19, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Isn't it interesting how Destiny directions can start and evolve! I saw that there was no TALK page for Elder Ballard's WP page/article and so started one with this idea. My thought then was that (1) the page was somewhat in need of improvement; (2) his emphasis is reaching out with modern tech/media (including youth taking a lead in social media) and what better media than Wikipedia? (3) Other thought, such as his leadership (under several prophets/presidents) in missionary work, first with young elders, then young sisters and seniors, and now member missionary work including his conf.talks. Further, I consider the TALK pages as an extension to the Article/pages, and a very interested WP reader will know to go there for further insights. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:00, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Kevin S. Hamilton nominated for deletion.[edit]

I am posting here to inform you, if you don't already know, that the article I started on Kevin S. Hamilton has been nominated for deletion. I have made my case for keeping the article on the relevant page, but was criticized for my comments. So while I will keep an eye on the way this develops, I don't intend to say more than I've already said. I wondered if you might be able to look over that AfD discussion and add your thoughts. If this page is deleted, I will have to question the notability of other articles written about current or former members of the Second Quorum of the Seventy. Anyways, just wanted to alert you to what was going on with that so you could comment if you choose. Perhaps you see this situation differently from me and have a better understanding of the policies and procedures involved. If you have any feedback on this comment, please leave it on my talk page, as I don't habitually check other users' talk pages for replies. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 01:23, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Terence M. Vinson and Gregory A. Schwitzer nominated for deletion.[edit]

Hey, I thought you'd like to know that the articles about Terence M. Vinson and Gregory A. Schwitzer have been nominated for deletion. I have made my case for keeping them and will leave it to the consensus to decide. If you'd care to comment, I'm sure your perspective, whatever it might be, would be welcome. Thanks for all your great work on Wikipedia! --Jgstokes (talk) 05:39, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

[The] Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints[edit]

Hello; because you commented in this discussion, I thought you might be interested in participating in this discussion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:12, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


Hello. I just wanted to drop a note and ask if you knew whether or not the CDOL is back up and running? If so, does it list the executive directors and assistant executive directors of the various Church departments? If it does, that information could be included in the now up-to-date List of general authorities page. Thanks in advance for any feedback you can offer about this. --Jgstokes (talk) 06:14, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, CDOL was never down, it was just my use of it, due to another short-term assignment. Hope all is well! ChristensenMJ (talk) 15:03, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

So the answers to my other questions are....? I asked, "Does [the CDOL] list the executive directors and assistant executive directors of the various Church departments? If it does, that information could be included in the now up-to-date List of general authorities page. Thanks in advance for any feedback you can offer about this." Thanks again for any feedback you are able/willing to provide. --Jgstokes (talk) 06:37, 5 August 2014 (UTC)


I have started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Latter_Day_Saint_movement#Official_Auxiliary_Titles involving Auxiliary Titles.--- ARTEST4ECHO (talk) 17:52, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

My recent absence from Wikipedia[edit]

Hello. You may have noticed that I have not been active on Wikipedia for about a month. Long story short, I got a job. I still intend to edit Wikipedia regularly, but getting into the groove of the job has left me unable to edit during the last month. So I wanted to drop a line and ask if there were any major changes on Wikipedia pages of interest that I needed to be aware of. You know my interests well enough by now to know what I mean by that. So if you could bring me up to speed, that would be great! Please leave any reply on my talk page as per my usual request. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 05:09, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Jgstokes! I hope things are going well for you. Congrats on the new job! Yes, I had noticed you not being around. About a week ago, I was going to send you an e-mail and see how things were going. I think things have been relatively quiet on the WP editing front during your time away. I can't think of any real major happenings to update you on! Thanks for checking in! ChristensenMJ (talk) 04:51, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Orologio verde.svg
This user's request to have autoblock on his/her IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.
ChristensenMJ (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Coolguymagilacudi". The reason given for Coolguymagilacudi's block is: "Clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopedia".

Accept reason:

I've unblocked as you're a long term good faith editor caught in a block intended for someone else. PhilKnight (talk) 23:00, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

edit warring[edit]

When you are asked to provide a better source you have three options: provide one,disengage, or take it to the talk page. Please note reverting is not one of the options. ThanksJohn from Idegon (talk) 00:22, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts, John from Idegon. The title you've given to this section isn't relevant, as no edit warring has taken place. Sourced content was added and you removed it, perhaps because you didn't like the source. That doesn't make the source invalid. It's not like this was a blog, personal opinion or original research shared. No better source was requested, but even if that's desired, there should be a request, perhaps on the talk page as you've noted, to find additional sources. Not just a revert where you think the math didn't work out as you thought it should. So, the options you have given may be valid if there isn't a presumption that it's one editor who feels the source isn't valid. Reverting was a perfectly appropriate option given the situation. Thanks so much for your efforts to further WP. ChristensenMJ (talk) 03:40, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  • It is about time to take this to Admin's, your conduct is biased and John is correct. You can not only use the good parts of a story and omit the balance and cumulative perspective it provides, only parsing out what it is you want to believe. talk→ WPPilot  04:36, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment, WPPilot. Do you what feel is best, but I can assure you my conduct is not biased. I didn't parse out anything. You added content that is not supported in the reference it immediately precedes. It amounts to original research to add the information you did. It may be true that people were across the street doing this, my edit summary notes that. Just source it as you would expect others to do. That seems fair and reasonable. There is no sense of bias in that request. ChristensenMJ (talk) 04:42, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
If a "handful of people" is worthy of note..... ChristensenMJ (talk) 04:58, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

As I have tried to say, feel free write it appropriately, using npov, and to source it. The recent addition, trying to attribute this to a July 2005 KSL story that doesn't exist, is why I reverted it. That's what I have said all along. ChristensenMJ (talk) 04:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
If a "handful of people" is worthy of note to somehow balance the article..... WPPilot ChristensenMJ (talk) 04:58, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  • What did you say? It is about notability, you have 4 locations that published something (in 2005) that was related to its opening and your dead set that it is a important building when it simply is not. It is only important in the minds of people that are told, and believe it is important. Wikipedia is not for mind reading members of the LDS to spread the word. If it has citations use them, if you can not find them, it will be deleted. 4 stories from 2005's open house does not cut the mustard here chief. talk→ WPPilot  05:05, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't know what "what did you say?" is supposed to mean. It appears that a few of you got started on this whole string as a City of Newport Beach issue, that remains with the group of you. There isn't anything in here about spreading the word or mind reading. ChristensenMJ (talk) 05:23, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Gordon B Hinckley[edit]

You are being report for edit waring.Mormography (talk) 01:44, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the message Mormography, but you are quite incorrect. I am not engaging in edit warring. I am neutral on these issues, but you have consistently ignored what has been noted or requested, which is to take things to the talk page. And just because people may not comment within some predetermined timeframe, doesn't mean that consensus has been reached. There can't just be demands or insistence that things are done to the liking of a single user, particularly when multiple other editors are reverting and in good faith, trying to generate consensus.ChristensenMJ (talk) 01:50, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the message, but you are quite incorrect. You are not neutral on these issues and you have consistently ignored what has been noted and requested, which is to take things to the talk page. This is easily proven. Having the time to make edits, but not discuss is a lack of discussion. There can't just be demands or insistence that things are done against a single user editing in good faith when a cabal votes against them with out discussion or consensus.Mormography (talk) 02:05, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mormography (talkcontribs) 03:06, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

  • What is happening on that page is textbook edit warring. I will be protecting the page from editing in order to give you both a chance to discuss the matter on the talk page. If edit warring resumes after the protection expires, the next step is for one or both of you to be blocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:53, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the message, Beeblebrox. I certainly understand the concern you have identified. I would just note that the user logging the complaints has been invited in each instance, across a couple of articles dealing with similar subject matter, to take things to the talk page and has chosen not to do so, has accused other good faith, long-time users/editors of being institutionally funded in support of a specific, non-neutral point of view, of developing a cabal to avoid 3RR issues, and apparently finds it cute to use a mocking form of using/mimicking words shared by other editors in follow up edits or reversions that have taken place, essentially trying to bull the way through, with seemingly no real intent to seek a consensus-obtained, sound and well referenced set of articles. It's always disappointing when all can't not only act in good faith, but also show reasonable respect to others across wp efforts. ChristensenMJ (talk) 07:13, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 20 January[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Salt Lake Tribune[edit]

I undid your reversion because who owns the competing paper, especially considering the history of the Salt Lake Tribune vis a vi the LDS Church, is relevant to the article. I did fix the wording however to say that they own it, not produce it. Cat-fivetc ---- 19:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, t. I made another small adjustment then in light of your desired edit, since the ownership was already identified in the article a couple sentences later (why I noted it wasn't needed in reverting your edit). ChristensenMJ (talk) 19:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) :I didn't realize it was already mentioned that the LDS church owns the newspaper, my edit was just to revert back to your version before I did my first edit to it today, there are no intervening edits other than your reverts so nothing was lost in the revert. Just having the note in the history section that they bought it wasn't entirely clear so I appreciate your edit. Cat-fivetc ---- 19:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Didnt' mean to revert your fixes, went back to your latest version and I'm going to stop editing it now so I don't mix it up again. Cat-fivetc ---- 19:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Not a problem! Sounds great! Thanks for your efforts!! ChristensenMJ (talk) 20:40, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.[edit]


This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Gordon B. Hinckley. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:39, 5 February 2015 (UTC) (DRN volunteer)

Template:LDS Temple/Idaho Falls Idaho Temple[edit]

I accidentally saved before I completed my sentence. I understand your reasoning, but the "s" is needed for all the templates used on List of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to work. Without it the temple is listed as "OPEN".--- ARTEST4ECHO(Talk) 18:03, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I suggest that if you don't think it is correct, bring it up on Talk:List of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Then it can be corrected.--- ARTEST4ECHO(Talk) 18:05, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi, ARTEST4ECHO, thanks for the message. I am not sure I completely follow what you're saying about the templates - where does the "open" part kick in? I see that in the listing it notes on all 5 that are currently closed that is the case, but there may be some other issues with the templates that I don't readily see and/or haven't worked with before. Thanks so much! ChristensenMJ (talk) 18:11, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
There are a large number of automatic tempaltes that change things based on the "Status" of the temple". For example, on the map on Template:List LDS Temple USA Northwest
I have been adjusting the ones I know about to take into account your choice in words. Until I made this edit the missing "S" the map kept the Dot on the map Template:List LDS Temple USA West Map as red or "Open". Additionally until I made this edit, the temple is listed as "Open" at Template:List LDS Temple USA Northwest. I have changed those to take into account your choice in word.
Unfortunately there are several other templates that I haven't yet figured out how they work that need the same changes. I suggest leaving the "S" in place and then bring up the change at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement/Temples so that all the other templates can be changed.--- ARTEST4ECHO(Talk)
OK, thanks so much for your response and the efforts! I wondered if perhaps something on the maps were an issue, since the "text" associated with listing and templates shows the designation. ChristensenMJ (talk) 18:23, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
The "status = " text is used in a "switch" statement to determine the color of the dot and the what text to display next to the name. For example if I chose "status = Closed" the dot on the map will appear as black and "(closed)" will appear next to the name. Unfortunately only an "exact" match works. Even capitalization matters. I have change two of the issues, but I know there are going to be many more. I really suggest you leave the "S" for now and then bring it up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement/Temples. Then the 10+ other templates used in the "Temple" pages will still work. Then those of you with much better grammar skills can decided who is right and wrong.--- ARTEST4ECHO(Talk) 18:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
OK, sounds great. Looks like we need to go into all 5 that are closed at this time then and update them...... The other thing I did last week was include in the status of the Mexico City Temple a status of "Closed for Renovation / Rededication Scheduled" - which sounds like it would also be a problem with various templates. ChristensenMJ (talk) 20:08, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Cultural Mormon[edit]

The link links to a plastic surgeon's website. Please look at links before you reinstate them. It has nothing to do with the article or Cultural Mormonism. RoyalMate1 19:46, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the message, Royal. If that's the case, then simply state it in the edit summary, as editing guidelines would typically dictate. I wasn't making any judgement on the content, as I noted. ChristensenMJ (talk) 19:50, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 8[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Eduardo Ayala, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Concepción (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 15[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lawrence E. Corbridge, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page J.D. (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Joseph Smith - Live Birth vs. Stillborn[edit]

I redid the edits to the Joseph Smith page. The previous reference of Bushman p69-70 is incorrect and does not talk about the death of his son. I corrected not only the information that it was a live birth, as supported by the source, but also corrected the page number. If there is another reference that mentions a still birth then please correctly reference that material. Here is a link to the correct page in the reference material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brownmattc (talkcontribs) 23:25, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Sounds great. I simplified or summarized the changes, as that level of detail not needed in the paragraphs trying to capture what was going on at that time. Thanks for your efforts to notice that it incorrectly stated the baby was stillborn. ChristensenMJ (talk) 00:52, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Harold B Lee[edit]

Hello ChristensenMJ. I spent a good deal of time looking at the Kimball biography, Quinn, and McKay biography sources that were there. I included those in the latest version--none of the sources are missing and you did not restore any new ones. Also, there were errors in the previous version. Also, the text claimed things that the sources did not support. There was no indicating in the sources of a unanimous vote in 1969, particularly since all three sources say that McKay and Smith were entirely against until a revelation came, and so were numerous apostles at the time. The sources also do not support the claim that Lee "blocked" the LDS Church. He couldn't "block" the LDS Church. He, Dyer, Petersen and others played a prominent role in suggesting a revelation versus mere administrative change which, according to the sources, was only really propounded by Brown. Check the sources yourself. Don't revert because it 'read well before'; it was inaccurate, and read poorly. Most important the sources did not support the claims. Vermilioncliffs (talk) 16:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

April 2015[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Winkelvi. I wanted to let you know that I removed one or more external links you added to the page Mormons, because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thank you. -- WV 03:12, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Winkelvi Actually I didn't add anything. These have been there for a very long time. You will have noticed that two other users, and IP and another suddenly got into a war about these. I am just restoring to what has been there. All they are is links to different parts of Mormonism, appropriate to the article. If the guidelines really don't allow for any 'see also' type of reference - such as linking to the official website of a university or other institution, that is fine - though seems harmless. Again, just know I didn't add anything - I was restoring long standing ELs that somebody started removing and they were warring over. Thanks so much! ChristensenMJ (talk) 03:16, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. In any case, you shouldn't be restoring the links - the reasoning for removing them is solid and in line with policy. Joining in the edit warring over reverting the removed content back in isn't advised. -- WV 03:18, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughts and understanding, Winkelvi. However, I think that given wp:elofficial there isn't anything wrong with the links that were there. They generally don't appear to be things like just random blogs - or may provide additional background, information, etc. on the topic of the article, with those typically from an independent news source simply doing reporting on the topic. ChristensenMJ (talk) 03:24, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


u know that I did not add or remove any links to that article don't u? (talk) 03:12, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes,, at a quick glance it appears you primarily tried to update the info related to the PBS link. You're biggest problem is the edit warring that you've engaged in, for which my guess is that you're likely to get blocked. ChristensenMJ (talk) 03:27, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • just so, Copenhagen temple is hard to find RS on. But Lyn Wilder and her book are notable. A young man with whom Wilder and her family were close was sent to Denmark, and the Wilder family visited him in Copenhagen, attended the Temple, and she wrote about the visit.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:41, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
the Temple in Portland is such a large institution that I am surprised to find it up for AFD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:41, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments, E.M.Gregory. I guess I am just playing a bit of devil's advocate here - "who" says that Lyn Wilder and her book are notable - and just because they happen to visit this young man while in Denmark, how does that improve the article, make it notable, or really have a true impact on the article. I am just not sure any of that has been demonstrated. "Any" temple that is visited by "any" person, notable or not, wouldn't typically make the temple notable, in and of itself. ChristensenMJ (talk) 02:17, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I misunderstood, the young missionary the Wilders visited at the Copenhagen Temple, Matt was Wilder's son. Of course Wilder doesn't make this temple notable. But it is routine to add a descriptions of a building, institution, place taken from a memoir to a WP page. E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:20, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.[edit]


This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Harold B. Lee. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Sorry, I noticed you made a statement but were not notified. This will be my first DRN case, so I'm not sure which formalities can be skipped, so here you go. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 22:40, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks so much, L235!! ChristensenMJ (talk) 22:45, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello, from a DR/N volunteer[edit]

Olive branch drawing.svg

This is a friendly reminder to involved parties that there is a current Dispute Resolution Noticeboard case still awaiting comments and replies. If this dispute has been resolved to the satisfaction of the filing editor and all involved parties, please take a moment to add a note about this at the discussion so that a volunteer may close the case as "Resolved". If the dispute is still ongoing, please add your input. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 22:48, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the message, L235. I am not sure whether the resolution discussion needs to remain open or not. The user who brought it as one who used 4 different IP addresses and in first time editing, focused on a small part of one article. That was the issue the user raised - before content removal I had wanted opportunity for consensus discussion opportunity. Subsequently, another new IP and another user who had previously only done 6-7 edits last October appeared for either a single day, or a few days at the most. The latter user and I engaged in some discussion and subsequent updates of the Harold B. Lee article in question, now that user has been silent again for a number of days. I personally have no more things to contribute to the resolution discussion, unless any of the day-use IPs appear again and are insistent upon non-consensus driven content removal. Thanks for your willingness to assist. ChristensenMJ (talk) 01:04, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Would you prefer that I closed the DRN case? Thanks, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 01:05, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, obviously I didn't open it or make the complaint, so I didn't know if I could suggest that. To me, it seems that would be reasonable, but also why I tried above to give some background and context, so you'd have a flavor of where things stand - at least from my viewpoint. ChristensenMJ (talk) 01:08, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
This is a formal notice that barring objection, this DRN case will close in 24 hours. Thanks, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 03:34, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

IP socking at LDS biographies[edit]

@AndyTheGrump and Gilliam: I've semi-protected all the articles that got hit today for one week. Looked into a rangeblock but too much collateral damage with it being a mobile IP range. --NeilN talk to me 04:01, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN: thanks for looking into it! It's maddening how many bios this vandal is targeting.– Gilliam (talk) 04:10, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, @NeilN:, thanks for the time & effort. As @Gilliam: noted, it's also real strange the type of editing - ranging from simply not adhering to mos and using honorifics, to then throwing in strange profanities/vulgarities on related-subjects and broader articles, that seem inconsistent with what at times just seems an inexperienced approach. Anyway...... ChristensenMJ (talk) 04:23, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Russell M Nelson - seniority[edit]

I guess i'm confused - how could Nelson now be "the most senior member of the Quorum of the Twelve" and at the same time "second most senior apostle among the ranks of the church." What is the difference? Blainster (talk) 03:18, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the question, Blainster. Yes, it can be a bit confusing. Typically the senior member of the Quorum (the President) is the only identified as to his seniority in the Quorum itself. As you look at other articles and see reference to the "among the ranks of the church" - that then is talking about the total church, so it includes the 3 members of the First Presidency. So, Nelson is the senior member of the Twelve, but overall in the church he is second, behind Monson. You'd note on articles about Henry B. Eyring or Dieter F. Uchtdorf that they are listed as 8th and 9th overall in the ranks of the church, even though they are currently in the First Presidency. I don't know if I've said this well to explain it, but there's a start. ChristensenMJ (talk) 05:02, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Thomas S. Monson[edit]

I requested that they put the Semi-protecion back on Thomas S. Monson at Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Thomas_S._Monson. Hopefully they will. You might want to chime in also, but it's up to you.--- ARTEST4ECHO(Talk)

Thanks so much, ARTEST4ECHO! Yes, it's gotten a bit ridiculous again these past few weeks. ChristensenMJ (talk) 23:23, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

It appears that ChristensenMJ is blatently trying to whitewash facts surrounding Thomas S. Monson. Any legal issues a public figure is in involved in should be included in a wiki profile. There is no hearsay with my edits but rather direct references to legitimate legal actions. See as precedent. Monomoinut (talk) 16:45, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Monomoinut, but you couldn't be more incorrect. As noted in the edit summaries, this has already been addressed on the talk page for Monson. So, it is not there by consensus, not by anything I said or did. Also, in one of your edit summaries, you noted something along the lines that that this isn't heresay, but represents "legitimate" legal situations - with legitimate probably being too strong a word. Too assume notability, non-frivolous filings in every single action or instance that might occur across any public figures life is simply not practical, or notable to their article. The issues with Trump don't establish a precedent at all. They are again done by consensus. ChristensenMJ (talk) 16:52, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I will redact the Tom Phillips part despite disagreeing with the consensus. The portion I originally included about the LDS Church sex scandal lawsuit that he has been subpoenaed to is highly relevant and cannot in any way be seen as "frivolous" as the Tom Phillips one may be seen in that light, particularly because a judge has ruled that the subpoena be reinstated. Monomoinut (talk) 20:51, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Russell M. Nelson[edit]

I will leave it be for now, but it really is Wikipedia:Citation overkill. You don't have to cite everything, only challenged or Likely to be challenged--- ARTEST4ECHO(Talk) 19:24, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I for one am grateful to ChristensenMJ's edit on Russell M. Nelson's page. While I know it's common sense that Nelson is now the President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, he has not by any account been sustained or set apart as such. As a matter of fact, at the funeral for Boyd K. Packer, Nelson gave the opening prayer. And in announcing this, Henry B. Eyring said that the prayer would be offered by Elder Russell M. Nelson of the Quorum of the TWelve Apostles. If he has not in public been referred to as the Quorum's President, we should wait until an official announcement or source can be cited. It is not citation overkill. Rather, it is merely necessary to ensure that the information is sourced before it is implemented into this page. Just my two cents. --Jgstokes (talk) 23:15, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
(Jgstokes and I were responding at the same time.....) : Thanks for the message, ARTEST4ECHO. Yes, I certainly understand the concept of overkill. As I noted in the edit summary, this seemed to have been somewhat of a compromise, since as you noted, it had been challenged. There were editors wanting to make the change, along with those who said he was not in that role until an official announcement was made. As you know, this being virtually the only LDS Church assignment/calling that works this way, he effectively became the quorum's president upon Packer's death. Even with the death of a church president, it's not automatic until the First Presidency is reorganized, with the senior apostle or quorum president in the appropriate presiding role, but not yet as the president. It is natural that out of respect, no announcement would be made until after today's funeral. That's at least the reasoning behind it. ChristensenMJ (talk) 23:21, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

1978 Revelation on Priesthood[edit]

Just saw your reversion of my edit, and your comment. I was thinking my edit could instead go in "Background", or in the second paragraph of "Events leading up to the revelation". I think it's a relevant addition; many fellow LDS I've spoken with note that the revelation had just as much impact on black women as it did on black men, since all black members were excluded from temple ordinances (other than baptism for the dead). Your thoughts?

Robnorth (talk) 17:21, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment, Robnorth. Yes, as you mentioned, my edit summary comment certainly notes there may be an appropriate place to include the information. I haven't been back through the article to see where that might be, so feel free to give it a shot and see how the wp community responds. Thanks for your efforts! ChristensenMJ (talk) 22:29, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


I wanted to use this one message to thank you for a bundle of edits you did recently. First, my thanks for the clarification and clarity you added to my references on the pages of each currently serving apostle. Your changes made my edit, which I felt was good, great. User: Trodel has made some suggestions about making these notes sourced and referenced. If you have anything to add, I would invite you to comment on the Latter Day Saint Wikiproject talk page. The other edits I wanted to thank you for were made to the Sunday School article and really helped address the question I had as far as making a clear distinction between those who served as members of the Sunday School General Presidency while they were General Authorities verses those who subsequently served as General Authorities after or before their Sunday School service. I really appreciate your good work and attention to detail. I also wanted to ask if you knew whether or not there has been any word about who the new Commissioner of Church Education might be in light of Paul V. Johnson's call to serve in an Area Presidency. Any information you have on that would be appreciated. Btw, there is no need for you to make the effort to reply on my talk page anymore. I hope it's all right, but I added your talk page to my watch list, so I will always know when you have replied here to a question or comment I have made. Thanks for all your efforts! --Jgstokes (talk) 07:10, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments and efforts, Jgstokes. Yes, as I noted in the edit summaries on the articles about the apostles, I agree on the need for some sourcing to the ref note that you initiated. I will try and go back and look a bit more on the Sunday School article. I don't notice any right off the top that should be bolded, given the things we've talked about, but I'll have a look. As I have mentioned before, I don't know if the church will choose to make any kind of "official" announcement regarding the Commissioner or not. It leaves the potential for that change, along with those that will come to the Board of Trustees/Education, without any accompanying sources. ChristensenMJ (talk) 15:33, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Jgstokes, since you noted the edit/reversion I did on the article for Kim B. Clark, the issue just remains as we've discussed - how/if the church will do any formal announcement. Part of the revert was also just because it needed to be added in better, more typical WP form, including in the lede, but that is another issue altogether. ChristensenMJ (talk) 14:42, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Jgstokes, I have gone ahead this morning and made changes to the articles for Paul V. Johnson and Kim B. Clark regarding the Commissioner of Church Education. As we've noted here, there isn't yet a source that I am aware of, but it is anticipated that following a Seminary and Institute training broadcast tomorrow, where Clark will speak, that one will become available that will at least note his new role. I guess we'll see if you, or other editors, feel it appropriate to wait until there is a verified source. I have included a citation needed note on the Clark article. ChristensenMJ (talk) 15:43, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
ChristensenMJ, I have no objections whatsoever to the above-mentioned material being added, especially since I know you have an inside track to know about things like this. If you're right, we'll know about the veracity and verifiability of this edit before the end of tomorrow. In the meantime, thanks for your updates to General Authorities pages, particularly in adding the new area leadership assignments. Also, thanks for your edits to Teachings of Presidents of the Church. I am usually on top of news like that. For whatever reason, I wasn't this year. But I'm excited to know we will be studying the life and teachings of Howard W. Hunter next year. Thanks for sharing this news, and thanks for all your great work! --Jgstokes (talk) 04:19, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Jgstokes. Depending on how/when the Church News writers cover the training broadcast, it may be later in the week, but there is usually coverage of this annual broadcast given in that source. I am not sure if we got all the individual pages of those serving in area presidency assignments and in some cases they have been there prior to the 2015 ref that is now included, but at least it's a start. Another user actually put in the Hunter curriculum for next year, but as we've both often done, I reverted until there was a source, which came today. Thanks for all you do! ChristensenMJ (talk) 04:40, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
I will keep an eye out for such a source, and you can be sure I will post one as soon as I am able, unless I'm beaten to the punch. It looks like, even if some were neglected, you sourced a good majority of all the new assignments. Good work! I'm not going to nitpick over who actually put in the Hunter information. It was enough that you found a source and cared enough to cite it. I came of age and was baptized during President Hunter's administration, but didn't pay much attention to General Conference until sometime during President Hinckley's tenure as prophet, so I was very excited this year to study the teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, and I look forward to studying Howard W. Hunter's teachings next year. Thanks for all your great work! --Jgstokes (talk) 08:13, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Just stumbled upon a source, dated May 1, 2015, that announces the change in Commissioner of Church Education. I can't believe I didn't think of it before, but the announcement was there, large as life, in the seminary and institutes of religion section of You will find the source in question here. Accordingly, I will be adding this source to all the relevant places. Hope this news pleases you. Keep up the great work! --Jgstokes (talk) 07:11, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Jgstokes. Yes, I knew when S&I's administrator asked Johnson if they could distribute an information item on 1 May, the day he was authorized to announce the change, that this internal announcement had gone out that day. As we have noted over the summer, there wasn't certainty whether the church (via the Newsroom) would make any type of official announcement, since the one identified is internal - via S&I's administration. One potential challenge to this being the source is that I believe it requires an LDS account to view the information. I am not sure it should/can remain as a source, since it's not visible by most of the WP community. I actually already removed it from the article about Johnson, but have left the others for now. Thoughts? ChristensenMJ (talk) 17:21, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

My understanding is that anyone--church member or not--can request an LDS account. For those that are not members of the Church, the enrollment process is a little different. But it is possible, as far as I know. Since the news item in question could thus be considered as being in the public domain, and since it is the only one available, I feel it's worth adding to all the relevant articles. You are, as always, welcome to disagree with me. But I have a feeling that once the Seminary and Institute broadcast is in the public domain, we will have another source that can be used to verify this information. In the meantime, a password-protected source is, in my mind, better than none at all, so I might go ahead and revert the Johnson edit. Let me know if you disagree. The last thing I want to do is get in an edit war with you. Just let me know. I'll be keeping an eye out for a response. Btw, they changed the policy at work so I can't check Wikipedia while on the job anymore. So my Wikipedia involvement will likely be limited during the week to what I can do outside of work. But whenever you leave a reply, I will at very least learn about it that day after work. Thanks, as always, for seeking my opinion before undoing my edits. I greatly appreciate your courtesy. Keep up the great work! --Jgstokes (talk) 05:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Yep, we'll anticipate a better source, based on Tuesday's broadcast, since it doesn't make a lot of sense to me to have a password protected source, independent of the ease to get to it. Good luck with the changes at work. Thanks for your continuing efforts! ChristensenMJ (talk) 15:17, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Recent edits to Brigham Young and Boyd K. Packer[edit]

Since Rjensen reverted both your and my reverts on the Brigham Young article that objected to his changing the page without first establishing a consensus for the material he wanted to add, I left a message on his talk page, which he promptly deleted. I'm not sure what to do about those edits as a result of that. It appears that he has very little respect for the principle of consensus and is determined to push his edits that violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policies. Thankfully, he seems to have gotten the message with this last revert of what he was trying to add. What more can/should be done in regards to this situation? I only ask because I'm very concerned about it, and I would like to see it resolved ASAP, as amicably as possible. Another matter I wanted your feedback on is an edit I recently made to the template in the article about Boyd K. Packer. My reasons for this edit are as follows: I don't think it's sufficient or correct to say that the reason President Packer's tenure as Acting President ended was because he became Quorum President. The real reason his tenure ended was because Thomas S. Monson, who simultaneously served as First Counselor and Quorum President, returned to the Quorum when the First Presidency was dissolved as a result of President Gordon B. Hinckley's death. He was only set apart as Quorum President a week later, after he was voice in setting apart President Monson as Church President. Is there a better way to explain that than the reference I added? I would welcome any suggestions/corrections you feel would be helpful or appropriate to make. Thanks for all your hard work! --Jgstokes (talk) 05:52, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the message, Jgstokes. For now, I don't think any more needs to be done on the Young article. I think the ref note you've added on the Packer template is fine. Sometimes it gets a bit tricky and becomes a "which came first, the chicken or the egg" sort of thing. Yes, technically he was no longer in the acting role as you've described, but also another practical side is that there was simply the interim time between Hinckley's death, funeral and reorganization of the First Presidency - Packer was going to become the quorum's president. Somewhat similar to what was just encountered after he died and the impact on Nelson. Thanks for your continued efforts! ChristensenMJ (talk) 14:16, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

On Brigham Yong's article, I noticed that a block was placed on the user who was causing so much trouble. Let's hope that leads him/her to reconsider their disruptive edits. I greatly appreciated your feedback on the note I left on Boyd K. Packer's template. I agree on what you said about his tenure as Acting President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles being seen in both an obvious and a practical way. Good insight on his death and Nelson's automatic ascension to that position. However, I feel that it's important in Packer's case to note that Monson was still the President of the Quorum of the Twelve until he was set apart as Church President. Only then did Packer's tenure as Quorum President become an automatic thing. I guess it comes down to the difference between what happens at the death of a Church President vs. what happens at the death of a Quorum President. The former is seen as automatic but in one case really isn't (as the most senior apostle could, if he felt so inspired, name someone else to succeed the Church president), whereas Quorum Presidency is more of an automatic thing, passing from one person to the next at the death of the first individual. Hope that makes sense. Anyways, just wanted to thank you again for your insight into these matters. Keep up the great work! --Jgstokes (talk) 08:13, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

George Albert Smith's Mental and Emotional illness.[edit]

The editing that Smith's mental and emotional illness doesn't appear in his teaching manual is not an observation. It's a flat fact. Go ahead and do a word search of the .pdf manual. Stating that "the sun appears yellow to the naked eye" also doesn't run afoul of wp:or. While technically an observation (on some level), it's also an undeniable fact, which doesn't require an academic article to cite to. Otherwise, we'd have to cite to articles like, "Was George Albert Smith Male?: a study of his apparent gender," in order to use the pronoun "he." I get it if you're a Mormon apologist, but to anyone without a religious agenda, this section is simply a fact, personally verifiable by anyone by clicking on the link, and therefore not worthy of academic study, and shouldn't be objectionable or a violation of wp:or.

If you want to find a way to work together so that it falls within the guidelines (it does already, but I'm willing to discuss other options in a spirit of collaboration), that's fine. I'm also happy to request a WP:Third opinion review. But you don't own these pages, nor the truth.

Delete it again, and I'll report you for edit warring.— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughts that above that are in good faith, Perhaps the spirit of collaboration could start with you toning down on things. I am grateful to see that for a new IP user with a focused purpose that you are aware of guidelines of WP. I make no claim to ownership of anything. I am glad to see that perhaps some of the recent edits you are making to this talk section reflects a better understanding of this. I suggest you take this whole thing to the article's talk page. ChristensenMJ (talk) 14:16 17:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I'm happy to be toned down once my purpose on these pages and ground rules are established. Pages on Mormon history or rife with vandalism, and/or apologetics. In a time when the LDS Church and its history/doctrines are under heavy attack, the truth is the only thing that will save it--and Wikipedia is the first place people go to find it. Full disclosure on me: I'm an active Mormon. I have three (3) apostles and six (6) seventies in my home ward, and I speak with them often. I'm also an attorney. And like the First Presidency and brethren who are constantly striving for greater transparency in the church, I have no tolerance for whitewashing Mormon history. My devotion and purpose on these pages lies in only one place--the truth. If it's supported by the facts and its relevant to to page, pro-church or bad (or in ANY article on ANY page), it belongs. If not, it doesn't. WP articles shall always be neutral--above all--but neutrality is not defined by lack of positive or negative information, only a lack of intellectual honesty and/or honest intent. If information is historically or conceptually relevant, and is supported by the facts, it belongs. If not, it goes. These pages have a long way to go before they're complete.

Thanks for the thoughts. I guess it's just me, but I'd generally recommend seeking to establish a purpose or whatever ground rules one thinks are important, then go after people, not in reverse order. Particularly when there is no idea where another person stands on things, or why they respond they way they do. I appreciate the full disclosure. I don't see myself any differently, trying to maintain an appropriate, neutral point of view in harmony with what has taken place. My concerns with the final section are that it seems to serves to reach or imply a conclusion - somewhat as you said, this could be good or bad, but it shouldn't be drawing the reader one direction or another. As you embark on this purpose, I would recommend establishing an account as that will assist in some of the editing and credibility that comes, whether right or wrong, that's often reality. Certainly there are too many editors who do either vandalize or go the opposite direction and want to put their beliefs in as fact, which not only hurts credibility, but is typically a conflict of interest. Thanks again for your efforts. ChristensenMJ (talk) 19:08, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

It's my pleasure-thank you. And thank you for yours. To co-operate with you and your concerns about implying any kind of conclusion, I've edited the language to remove the word "paradoxically" to further distance it from such concepts. Now it should simply read as a statement of fact. In regards to your approach on how to deal with things--I prefer to take action first, and let people react and show themselves. It's generally a more genuine response.

Take care. (talk) 19:53, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Taking action, or striving to be bold, in editing is one thing, straight out of the gate lacking civility and throwing threats around is entirely different. It's far from being genuine. Going against the guideline and the spirit of civility that is a pillar of the collaborative efforts WP is based on would make things more challenging. ChristensenMJ (talk) 04:09, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Temple status template and CES page edits[edit]

Hello. I wanted to write and thank you so much for your edit on the LDS temple status template page. I had been hoping to have time to update that on Wikipedia last weekend, but other things got in the way and I wasn't able to do so. So my thanks for that edit. I also wanted to post and explain my edit on the CES page. As I said in the edit summary, I am a grammar Nazi. I have taken 3 Honors English classes in High School and spent my junior and senior years in High School on the staff of the school newspaper. Plus, my mom does freelance proofreading for Deseret Book. I am listing these credentials so that you understand that I didn't pull my edit out of a hat or revert your change out of any bad feelings for you. One of the things that was stressed in all my classes was the overuse or misuse of punctuation marks. One thing I noticed in most of the articles or papers I proofread in those classes was that there is a misunderstanding, misuse, and overuse of the comma. As I stated in undoing your edit, it makes more sense grammatically and in form to eliminate the commas. Are they okay to use in this case? Probably. But if we want the best Wikipedia we can possibly have, then articles must be attentive to the proper use of punctuation. In my mind, it makes more grammatical sense to have "Kim B. Clark of the First Quorum of the Seventy" than "Kim B. Clark, of the First Quorum of the Seventy." If you were to say something like "Kim B. Clark, a member of the First Quorum of the Seventy", then the two commas would clarify the meaning. But there shouldn't be a comma prior to or following a preposition. That's a commonly understood grammatically rule, at least to all who are grammar Nazis like myself. I can't provide chapter and verse for you on this. I can only assure you that I am a grammar Nazi and do know what I'm talking about in this matter, much as all I can do is trust you in some things we've discussed over time. I have no motivation to lie to you. I hope you will determine that I can be trusted as one "in the know" on this matter. I don't want to edit war with you. If you do require a source, though, I can get you one from my mom's Chicago Manual of Style. With that said, I do hope you will take my word for it and not wage an edit war about this. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 09:10, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi! Not a worry! I appreciate you taking the time to explain some background and your experiences. Don't need to worry about waging edit wars. I appreciate your continuing efforts to increase wp. I went ahead and updated the sentence, consistent with the example you gave above. ChristensenMJ (talk) 13:28, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks and Questions[edit]

You may have noticed that I sent a lot of thanks your way for all the changes you have made, specifically ones that enhanced changes made by me. Hope I didn't go overboard in those expressions. In regards specifically to James J. Hamula, I understand where you're coming from but might suggest that similar wording as what I had be employed to explain Hamula's current service. It's not as if my wording was inaccurate. His assignment is currently unspecified. Anyways, I just wanted to see what could be done about that. Thanks again for your efforts. P. S. I wanted to also specifically solicit your feedback on my two proposals to rename or move the location of two Church-related articles. To me, it makes more sense to have the general authorities and general officers of the Church on one page rather than two separate articles, especially as the Church now puts them on the same chart in the Ensign. As for the other proposal, the marquee of the weekly choir program does use "&" rather than "and", so I feel it's worth proposing a renaming of that article. Thoughts? --Jgstokes (talk) 09:43, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I would probably leave the listings of general authorities and general officers separate. I don't think it changes anything that the church now shows them on the bottom of the chart in the Ensign. I don't have an opinion on the broadcast. Are there any wp guidelines about using characters in titles versus words? Thanks for your kindness on the articles we have both worked on recently. I get the issue on people such as Hamula, I just don't see it as that helpful, there's no sourcing available, etc. You are right, in the non-wp view, nothing stated was inaccurate. ChristensenMJ (talk) 09:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello again, my friend. I wanted to apologize to you personally if I offended you by asking you to summarize your argument against this page merge. I felt you could do it better than I could, especially since I might be tempted to deliberately misrepresent your views to ensure that this change would go through. I want you to know that I don't take offense at your opposition to this change. I respect you too much as a Wikipedia editor and as a person to do so. I hope you don't take offense at and know that I mean well in continuing to voice my support for this change. You're awesome! Have a wonderful day! --Jgstokes (talk) 06:29, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate the sentiment expressed, Jgstokes. No offense exists. Life is far too short to take offense at things. Thanks for all you do! ChristensenMJ (talk) 14:42, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

(Not starting a new section for this comment....) Jgstokes, as Good Ol’factory has noted, chapter and verse is pretty straightforward, as the church's handbook is pretty clear. From time to time, there has been a common misperception about 5 members of a bishopric - particularly when those serving as a ward clerk or executive secretary self-describe their assignments as being part of the bishopric. Here is another note from the church's Handbook 2, showing a clear distinction between the bishopric and other assignments: 4.3 Priesthood Executive Committee "The ward priesthood executive committee (PEC) includes the bishopric, ward clerk, ward executive secretary, high priests group leader, elders quorum president, ward mission leader, and Young Men president." As to priesthood office requirements, there is also the exception of YSA counselors, as noted in Good Ol’factory's other edit summary. ChristensenMJ (talk) 14:10, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Fraternities at BYU[edit]

Hey, concerning your second revert, I assumed you initially reverted it because my citation had a syntax error in the citation. But, aware now that you did see it and your concerns are more than just an 'appropriate ref' (which made me think you hadn't seen my initial ref) but about WP:RS instead. I was unaware initially of the nature of the 100HB and assumed it to be a more or less direct source, but that said, what would you considered a reliable source on the subject? Would this, an archived page coming from (what I assume to be) Dr. Susan Rugh at BYU's History department, be more along the RS lines for you?: If not, I'd appreciate some help locating a more solid source, as this certainly a subject that, at least concerning collegiate life in North America, is a significant component that isn't mentioned in the article. GreenRunner0 19:55, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, GreenRunner0. As you review what is appropriate to be used as a reliable source, that would help guide the addition you're interested in making. I think it's clear that the blog-like, message board nature of the 100HB doesn't meet the standard. In addition to the regular information on reliable sources, reviewing principles in the area of user generated content may help. Good luck in your search and thanks for your efforts in WP. ChristensenMJ (talk) 22:35, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


Instead of spending so much effort erasing other's "good faith efforts" why don't you just fix them? Asking for a friend. Thmazing (talk) 20:40, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Certainly planning to, as time permits. People rush in, often with no prior experience and in good faith. ChristensenMJ (talk) 20:41, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
It's an opportunity to welcome new people to Wp. Those people see their fledgling effort deleted, they may never come back. That's not what Wp is about. Far better to let them see their fledgling efforts grow into the preferred format. That feels good and leads to more people participating. Thmazing (talk) 21:40, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't disagree with that principle. That works very well when there are a few new editors/contributors, not as well when there are many who are all rushing to throw something in across a wide variety of topics/articles. ChristensenMJ (talk) 21:44, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

FYI - also created a template for Renlund. Granted, it's incomplete, but at least it's a start. Atohanie (talk) 21:26, 3 October 2015 (UTC)Atohanie

Thanks so much, Atohanie!! ChristensenMJ (talk) 21:29, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Jeffrey R. Holland has a daughter[edit]

I tried adding Jeffrey R. Holland's daughter. But you removed my minor edit because you felt she was not as notable as her brothers. I believe the page is about Jeffrey R. Holland specifically. And specifically there is a section about his immediate family. Somehow you've found his wife to be notable enough, but not his daughter. May I ask why you're opposed to listing her name? Curtisnoble (talk) 06:19, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the message/edit revert I anticipated would take place, Curtisnoble. The simple answer is that "notability" as defined here is for Wikipedia purposes (see Notability). It does not somehow reflect they aren't a good person, etc., etc. Yes, it is about him specifically, and he has three children. That would be the extent of the listing, if his sons weren't notable - meaning having articles about them. As you referred to above, I didn't find Holland's wife anything - WP found her notable because she served in a general auxiliary presidency of the LDS Church, not because she is married to him. Neither his wife, their sons, nor their daughter, would be included just because of their relationship to him (see Related). For example, this applies to every other member of the church's Quorum of the Twelve, with their wife not having a WP article and being deemed "notable" in this regard. Those articles typically state the spouse's name and the number of children. I hope that helps some and you'll note that another editor has removed your good faith edit for the same reason. Thanks for your efforts to help WP. ChristensenMJ (talk) 14:28, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I apologize if I misunderstood the notability requirements. I had reviewed them and felt that WP notability applied only to whether or not a topic or person deserved its own article. That's why I didn't create an individual article. Specifically the requirements state that "Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article." So naturally I felt okay including it. And as I go back and look deeper into the topic I believe that the notability guidelines for lists certainly apply. The family section provides a list (of sorts) including his immediate family. It mentions he has three children, but only names two of them. And of this, WP says: "Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable." Granted this is for stand-alone lists, but I think the general rule applies here. If you mention he has children, you should include all of them regardless of notability because the group is notable. Again, I'm not trying to add an article about Mary H. McCann. I'm simply trying to improve the factual content in this article. And according to WP, notability guidelines don't pertain to article content. Do you disagree still? Curtisnoble (talk) 16:54, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

No need to apologize. I think I see where you are trying to come from, but it's still not needed or typically included in an article. You noted a specific guideline, which doesn't have the general application attempted. It doesn't add value the article to have the names of children listed. Biographies of living people also get tricky due to privacy and other related issues. Maybe I am wrong, but it seems the main rub here is that two of the three children are listed, with a feeling that somehow lessens the impact or importance of their daughter. Since the general guidelines, or even stated as practice, is not to list the children's names, I am going to remove it again, as it's typically shown. On the talk page for the Holland article, if you'd like to start a discussion item and lay out the reasons why her name should be included, to see what the community consensus might be, that would certainly be fine. Thanks for your efforts! ChristensenMJ (talk) 17:22, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Another M. Christensen[edit]

In an edit summary at Ryan T. Murphy I asked you the curious question of if, since you are a Christensen like me--Mike--(and I will continue to write even with another IP address if/when it changes on me), your M from "MJ" also stands for "Mike"/"Michael" like mine does. So... just for you to be friendly with me and fill in my curiosity (and since your user name is much of your real name anyway, I suspect), does it stand for that? But if not, then what?

Mike A. Christensen, a.k.a. (talk) 02:57, 20 October 2015 (UTC) for now.

Happy Back to the Future Day, MJ Christensen! But wait... I see that you have still been making contributions to the Wiki since I last posted here (using whatever IP address I have now because it's dynamic). So why do you not even want to slightly touch this conversation with me (with even so much as a mere acknowledgment)?
Also Christensen, (talk) 00:20, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I didn't really have a comment to share, since I didn't anticipate responding to the question. As for the IP address issues mentioned, you'd be far better served to actually establish an account, although it appears that with only a tiny little variation, there's only article with interest in and insistent with. ChristensenMJ (talk) 04:02, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, Christensen MJ, if I shared my full first name with you in a friendly way like that, and we LDS tend to be known for our extra friendliness, then why would you not want to be extra friendly and let me see your real name too (even if you post it to my current IP address, which would not be too easy for someone to discover more of you through as it would be here on your own page), although they could just take one more step to get to it)? Or even if you were really paranoid about what anyone here would do with your full first name, then why would you not anticipate even replying? Why would you rather be unfriendly by just pretending like nothing was posted (although thanks for answering now)?
And what do you mean by "there's only article with interest in and insistent with"? I can't really pull a complete thought out of that. Will you try to rewrite it, please?
The other M. Christensen, (talk) 16:59, 23 October 2015 (UTC).
You are certainly welcome to have shared your full name as you chose to, but not only does it not mean that I have to do the same, it also shouldn't be construed as somehow unfriendly, less-friendly, being any more or less LDS than anyone else, paranoid or any other form of description that could be identified. The sentence that didn't come out well was in reference to the general focus (with some relatively modest exception) on one primary article, with a good deal of insistent attention paid toward it. Thanks for your efforts to contribute to WP. ChristensenMJ (talk) 18:22, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
No, by "unfriendly," I meant that originally you were--and you said this yourself--not even anticipating responding to the question. Why would you rather be unfriendly by not even acknowledging the question, at least (until now, so thanks now, at least)?
And as for your name itself goes, if it's not about the fear of the potential for outsiders to somehow be able to abuse you if they knew what it was (just what the M stands for), then what is your concern with that?
And what were you trying to tell me when you said "The sentence that didn't come out well was in reference to the general focus (with some relatively modest exception) on one primary article, with a good deal of insistent attention paid toward it"? You did clean up your sentence, but you're still inconclusive as to what your attempted point is. What is it? (talk) 02:34, 24 October 2015 (UTC). (Oh, look, my IP address changed again. Shoot.)
Did you not understand what I was saying, M.J. Christensen?
Mike, currently at IP 2600:100E:B105:46CC:F880:D86A:B0A3:4E13 (talk) 03:52, 26 October 2015 (UTC) (my home service is out right now so I have my PC tethered to my phone).

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Barranquilla Colombia Temple[edit]

It seems you are expecting for official communication by the church of jesuschrist of latter day saints to be issued, while many will find it important to know prior to that that a date has been issued. Would you need a letter to convince yourself that such communication exists? Andrewpcx 21:21, 9 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewpcx (talkcontribs)

Thank you for the message, Andrewpcx. I am not expecting any more than is required by Wikipedia guidelines, which includes having reliable sources for additions that are made. Even if I had been sitting in a meeting where such a letter was read or say a copy myself, this doesn't meet the required reference need. Among other things, this is to help WP not just be based on heresay, opinion, speculation, etc. Once the church makes an announcement and content can be sourced, it will entirely appropriate to update the article. Until that time, it is not. Thanks for your good faith efforts. ChristensenMJ (talk) 21:28, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Will create the page in Spanish also and attach the letter so that people outside Colombia can find out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewpcx (talkcontribs) 21:45, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
I am not sure what you man by a Spanish page, but even attaching the letter doesn't qualify as being from a published, reliable source. ChristensenMJ (talk) 21:58, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
It means another language, a stub in spanish. Made edits to correct bad info like "Columbia" to "Colombia" and metropolitan area of barranquilla, since it isn't located in barranquilla.Andrewpcx 22:07, 9 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewpcx (talkcontribs)
Yep, I get that. The Spanish stub should include a reliable source, just as much as the English version. Thanks for the updated spelling on the country. I simplified the link you included for the metro area. ChristensenMJ (talk) 22:09, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
If you haven't noticed my friend, i'm quite obsesive compulsive. I can't control it some times. However, news release fixed the thing. Love it when something annoying comes to an end. Gr8t! Please give it a check to guarantee that citation has been entered the right way please. Being the only person from barranquilla actually updating that page, it is quite important to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewpcx (talkcontribs) 05:31, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Yep, good to see the news release take place. Cited references overcomes ocd in the wp world, so this is good. Thanks for your efforts. It will be great to have a temple in your area. ChristensenMJ (talk) 05:52, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Temple Department Executive Directorship[edit]

ChristensenMJ, thanks for your continued great work here on Wikipedia. Work and some personal crises have kept me from regularly contributing to Wikipedia lately, but I have done what I could. I am writing to discuss our difference of opinion regarding the directorship of the Temple Department. I respect you as an editor, and your efforts to ensure accurate information on LDS related pages has been inspirational to me. However, here's the situation as I see it. We have the reference from the Church stating that Wilson is the new Temple Department Executive Director. Then we have your claim that the Church article is in error. On what grounds is that claim being made? Do you have a counter-source that disproves this information? I realize that in some areas relating to the Church, you have more inside information than I do. But I see also that you initially discounted the news of the Kinshasa and Barranquilla temple groundbreakings because "the Church hasn't officially announced them." and then later changed your tune when the Church announced it. Odds are, the original news came from, which, though not officially endorsed by or supported by the Church is nonetheless kept up to date by information which the Church supplies to the webmaster, Rick Satterfield. I have always been of the opinion that one source trumps no source. And especially in this instance, where there has been no official retraction, correction, or clarification from the Church, the source we have is officially from the Church. Until we have a counter source, it is my opinion that we should go with what we know. I could see not trusting the information if it came from, but where it came from the Church's official Newsroom, I feel we must use that as our yardstick against which the veracity of any other claim can be measured. Unless you can cite a countersource or otherwise disprove this source, my edits, backed up by the official Newsrooom release, should stand. At least, that's the way I see it. You probably see it differently. If you have any additional light to shed on this matter, you can post it here, on my wall, or on the relevant Wikipages. Keep up the great work! --Jgstokes (talk) 07:31, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to hear about the personal items in life, I hope things are going better. Let's begin by clarifying your expressions regarding the temples. I didn't "change my tune" at all, I was simply waiting for a reference to source. The editor was a good faith church member from Barranquilla who just wanted to put original research out, based on what had apparently been read in local meetings. (Talk section right above this one.) Since you are so high on, I will just note that during this time, that website contained the same information as the wp article - indicating that no announcements had been made. It was not the source of anything, not that it would have mattered. So, it seems a stretch to try and compare this circumstance on the temple department in a way that would shoot a hole in my credibility, which is fine. You can do what you choose. I assumed when the Newsroom article was created that it was just an inadvertent error. The church isn't going to "retract" something like that as it's not the focus of the event. They may not even realize they did it. If they are made aware of the error, they would just update the release. I made efforts for some appropriate verification before reverting, so that I wasn't making a "claim" on my own, but that is not relevant, since there isn't a source that will indicate such. So, go ahead and leave the incorrect information up, as that suits you better. I am sorry that you think I'd be wreckless and unfounded in making edits. ChristensenMJ (talk) 13:43, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Since I was noting above that they probably hadn't even realized the inadvertent error, I just happen to look at the Newsroom information again. They have made the appropriate correction. ChristensenMJ (talk) 02:20, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


This was deft. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:59, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Good Ol’factory. As always, appreciate the stellar contributions you make! ChristensenMJ (talk) 00:07, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the expertise for this fix on the auxiliary leaders page, Good Ol’factory. When I first tried to leave the ages blank, I obviously didn't do it right, as there were stray marks in the box. That's when I resorted to "bad dates" and a ref note! I don't fuss with some of that formatting stuff enough to know what I may or may not do for further damage! :) Take care! ChristensenMJ (talk) 14:45, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Number of Young Men General Presidencies/Current Temple Status[edit]

Hello, ChristensenMJ. I am stopping by to once again thank you for all your wonderful work on Wikipedia. Thanks especially for fixing and clarifying good faith edits I have made. The Young Men General Presidency count is tricky. I can see merits to either course of action. That's why I'm leaving it for the consensus to decide. I don't care which way it goes, as long as we can come to some agreement. Also, I wanted to let you know why I have made changes to the current status of LDS temples. I feel that noting temples under renovation or with a groundbreaking, dedication or renovation scheduled are just as important to note as the normal categories of operating, under construction, and announced. I would have no objection to you or anyone else editing for clarification or brevity, which is not my strong suit. I hope we can settle on a wording that is satisfactory to all concerned. Thanks for all your great work! --Jgstokes (talk) 06:36, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Jgstokes. Good to hear from you. I hope things are going well. Yep, I agree about the YM & I feel the same - see what the community feels to do. If that is to double count Eldredge, it will of course be necessary to ensure all other articles for those that served after him, where it designates their number in succession, are also updated. Also, as I noted in the edit summary, I changed the temple template back. I just feel that is way too much detail for the typical use of the template within the various articles it is found. There have been others that have suggested the number of "operating" temples should be reduced to reflect those closed for renovation, which is also a bit tricky, but of course virtually all source, primary or secondary, will show the total as including those, 149 in this case, for another month. Anyway, thanks again! ChristensenMJ (talk) 15:10, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Lima Peru Second Temple[edit]

Hello. Thanks for reordering the temples to reflect the order in which they were announced. As I mentioned on the talk page, I am having trouble getting the Lima Peru Second Temple to show up on the list. Any help you can give me with this would be appreciated. Also, did you see my note on the list of general authorities WP article? It appears the Church no longer differentiates between those of the First and Second Quorums of the Seventy, and, instead sustained those called yesterday as merely "General Authority Seventies." Any help you could give me with these items would be appreciated. THanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 19:12, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Jgstokes. I hadn't seen your talk page item, but I had fixed the temple listing. Yes, as we noted last October, the use of General Authority Seventy has been used since just prior to that conference. It remains unclear in public sources as to whether there will be those called for a shorter term of service anymore or not. Thanks for all you do! ChristensenMJ (talk) 19:42, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

ChristensenMJ (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribs deleted contribscreation log change block settingsunblockfilter log)

Request reason:

I believe I was inadvertently blocked as collateral damage for some other sort of block. Thank you.

Decline reason:

Procedural decline - you appear to have successfully edited since placing this request, so I presume you no longer have a problem. If it recurs, please place another request stating the block message. Optimist on the run (talk) 18:32, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.

Nothing I can see indicates this account or the IPs you use have been blocked; what do you see when you try to edit? --jpgordon::==( o ) 13:58, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Thank you! It was showing an IP address block last night, but then later I was able to edit again, so not sure what happened! Thanks for the follow up, --jpgordon! ChristensenMJ (talk) 04:25, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Amy Osmond Cook[edit]

Thank you for your edits. I personally felt the sections better organized the information in the article and made it easier to read, but your comments on it being too short for sections have been noted. For clarity and for me to make sense of changes that at times seem arbitrary, can you point me to a specific guideline here? I am a relatively new user so that would be helpful. Also, I did some research regarding your remarks on the 25th of November - remarks concerning the previous nomination of an article on this individual for speedy deletion. I wasn't aware of the article that had been deleted, but I was able to locate and archived version of it online. After reviewing, I understand why it was removed (poor citations, close connection with the subject, etc). However, the current article, from what I can tell, follows Wikipedia's guidelines and does not appear to be substantially similar to the one you were referring to. Hopefully I'm correct in saying this. Thank you very much for your help! Jeremyb949 (talk) 18:06, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

You summarily undid good faith changes to a page with only your personal opinion justifying it. Such arrogance is what is wrong with wikipedia[edit]

You carelessly undid all my accurate good faith updates with one click, to the page about the "what of the mormons" book and you clearly did not review ANY of the changes and only returned the page to the status quo which included a state where no references were in the reference section (a problem I had fixed). PROTECTING PAGES for personal reasons is a violation! People established on wikipedia, such as yourself, who camp and routinely block good faith changes on wikipedia, display disgusting behavior. Wikipedia is NOT about protecting the status quo and protecting pages from updates that might show uncomfortable things about your church. Since you are not interested in accuracy on pages, only maintaining the status quo on mormon related pages, your privileges should be suspended.

All of the changes I made to that page were ACCURATE and in very telling fashion, you did not even challenge ANY of the changes specifically, you merely summarily undid everything I had added in good faith. You returned the page to a state of blatant inaccuracy regarding that book, and a state lacking a reference in the reference section that I had added. You should have your ability to alter pages suspended because you clearly do not seek to contribute to wikipedia, only maintain the status quo on pages that pertain to mormonism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:39, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Since it is a rule to tell people when they have been reported, here you go, you have been reported for protecting a page related to your church, merely out of personal opinion and desire to protect your church from any accurate descriptions: — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:54, 27 April 2016 (UTC) (talk) 03:06, 27 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:04, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Aside from personal attacks (talking about supposed arrogance, disgusting behavior, accusing me of personal page protection, etc.), all of which have no basis and are inappropriate in the WP environment, I can appreciate your worries that changes you made were not retained. Since you are only using an IP address, there is little history to know what your experience to date has been with Wikipedia. You couldn't be further from the truth on claims that I am only interested in personal opinion and protecting the LDS Church. If there are appropriate, sourced and npov edits to be made, then make them. However, as I noted in the edit summary, the changes you applied to the article had more of a feel of personal commentary, were unsourced and seemed to be written with a specific intent to try and imply some wrong doing, something sinister or shady behavior in the church's choice to take the original book written by Hinckley and use it later as an official publication. Therefore, I reverted the edits, with clear notification that I believe they were done in good faith. ChristensenMJ (talk) 04:40, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Our conflicting edits to List of general authorities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints[edit]

Hey. I wanted to let you know that I appreciate the reasons for reverting my edit on this article, but I disagree with your reasons for so reverting. Why is it inaccurate and/or inappropriate to say this was a practice and policy change? Changes such as this are almost always a matter of both rather than one or the other. I went ahead and reinstated my wording, but wanted you to know so as to avoid a potential edit war or the possibility of unintentionally offending you. Thanks for your attention to this detail, but I really feel both words are needed in this case. --Jgstokes (talk) 02:57, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Jgstokes. I hope you are well. Thanks for the kind thoughts. I am pretty hard to offend, life is too short for much of that, aside from the normal concept of acting in good faith in the WP environment. So, my primary thought is simply that the use of "policy" is way too strong. This is more of a practice or a preference that they have opted to utilize this terminology or approach. I would imagine policies of the church are typically more substantive, such as recent clarifications on gender and marriage-related matters, or the church's "policy" on abortion, etc. From the outset, in my view of things, this has been a change in practice or preference. There is also the issue that Good Ol’factory noted in his edit summary about a source. ChristensenMJ (talk) 04:55, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I understand now that my revert of your was disingenuous at best, and totally uncalled for at worst. Sorry about that. Thanks for your kindness. --Jgstokes (talk) 06:26, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Jgstokes, not at all. Your edits and interests remain in good faith. Don't overstate as if something terribly wrong occurred. All is good! ChristensenMJ (talk) 12:35, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Your defense of me on Book of Abraham[edit]

I just wanted to drop a line and thank you for your defense of me on the article about the Book of Abraham. It appears the user of whom I was trying to request that proper procedure be followed has elected to unleash his ire on me. It was only you that recognized my good intentions. I appreciate your defense of me, and I'm sorry if I offended this user. My good intentions seem to have been called into question more and more recently, and I appreciate your willingness to recognize my good intentions, however misguided they may have been in this case. Thanks again. --Jgstokes (talk) 01:54, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Ezra Taft Benson and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints[edit]

Hi there! I'm just wondering whether you plan on taking part in the discussions that Ministre d'État and I opened at Ezra Taft Benson and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints respectively. Cheers, Graham (talk) 22:47, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I hadn't since I felt the edit summaries had provided enough reason why, but thanks for the invitation to respond. Thanks for all your efforts! ChristensenMJ (talk) 17:12, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Edit summaries do not take the place of discussion on the talk page, but I appreciate that now you have responded. Thanks, Graham (talk) 22:01, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, I know they don't, but wasn't sure there was much more to say, nor does everything of course end up on the talk page. Thanks so much! ChristensenMJ (talk) 22:09, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

LDS articles[edit]

Hi, in regards to your recent reverts on Stephen L Richards and Mervyn B. Arnold, my edits were intended to remove the duplicate "the", e.g. "the The Church of Jesus Christ and Latter-day Saints". If your issue is with the capitalization of "the" in "The Church of Jesus Christ and Latter-day Saints", then you can adjust it accordingly, but remember to avoid the duplicate "the". —0xF8E8 (talk) 16:14, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, 0xF8E8. I hadn't noted the duplicate "the" so yes, I will go back and update the articles and restore the full link, as per WP:THE. Thanks so much! ChristensenMJ (talk) 18:29, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Perth Australia[edit]

Does not exist, please understand that having a title like that is nonsensical - there is more than one Perth. You should have understood that a redirect is far more sensible than re-storing the meaningless title of the name JarrahTree 23:19, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the message, JarrahTree. Yes, I understand what you are saying, particularly since I have lived in Perth. I am sorry this concerns you in this way. Although not precise in its full geographic name, this is the naming convention the church uses in its naming of temples, so it seems it would be more nonsensical to have an article name for a building (in this case) that does not exist. ChristensenMJ (talk) 23:36, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply - Perth Australia is used extensively by US based social media, and it simply shows american geographically challenged centrism bit like the Mexican Canadian border as identified by a former leader - if the church used the name, I think it needs to be clearly indentified as being in Perth Western Australia, as Perth Tasmania could the be eliminated as a chance and not implicated - the repetition of the name in the article simply was unnecessary - no need to apologise - just understand that the usage is specifically american - it is not australian usage - the pervasiveness of non australian usage in australian localities and names is something that people do not seem to understand very clearly the article title simply perpetuates it JarrahTree 05:32, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, ChristensenMJ. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Bruce D. Porter/Europe East Area Presidency[edit]

Thanks for your ongoing good faith efforts in regards to the recent death of Bruce D. Porter. As I have been absent from regular Wikipedia editing until this week when I started a new job, I was operating on what I read in the Deseret News article about Elder Porter's death. Here's the relevant paragraphs from the article, which is the statement made by a Church spokesman in announcing Elder Porter's death: "We are deeply saddened to announce that Elder Bruce D. Porter of the Seventy died at his home last evening, surrounded by his family. Elder Porter, age 64, succumbed to a pulmonary infection that developed in recent weeks. Until earlier this month he served as the President of the Europe East Area.

"In early December he was released from that position and assigned to serve at Church headquarters. Our gratitude, thoughts and prayers are with his wife, Susan, and their family. We are profoundly grateful for the valiant service he offered to the very end of his life. He will be greatly missed."

If the pulmonary infection developed in recent weeks, it was the reason for the end of his area presidency assignment, and the reassignment to Church headquarters, whether it was "real" or not, was nonetheless a fact. And if the cited sources verify it, it should be included.

However, since I always find it safer to assume good faith, so I will fight the many logical reasons I have to revert your revert of my edit. But I am approaching you about this privately to let you know that I couldn't disagree more with your most recent edit. I have every respect for you as an editor, but I strongly object to your apparent open disregard for what the verifiable sources say. Wikipedia has very little to do with "reality" and almost everything to do with "verifiability." That reason alone is strong enough grounds to warrant a revert of your edit.

But out of respect for you and the work and thought you put into just about everything you have always done as a Wikipedian, I will forebear from waging an edit war just to prove this point.

Now that I've made my objections to your revert clear to you, I did want to ask: since you seem to have an inside track on what changes are happening at Church headquarters, do you know what has been done in terms of reorganizing the Europe Area Presidency? Obviously Elder Porter's reassignment and subsequent death, such as it was, means that such a change has already happened. I have looked seemingly in vain for information on that point, and have come up empty. As far as I know, the Europe East Area is one of few in the world that doesn't have its own website on

My only hope is that, now that the Deseret News has relayed news of Elder Porter's death, the news of those changes will shortly follow. Thanks, as always, for your great work. --Jgstokes (talk) 06:19, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Jgstokes, thanks for the message and nice to see you back in editing mode. Thank you for voicing your strong objection. I not only have previously read the press release, but also believe I have some understanding of verifiability, etc., so it's OK not to rehearse it all back. What you have shared in support of verifiability, I actually believe is just the opposite. The reasoning you are using to perform the edit feels more like "synthesis" (even though it's not coming from multiple sources, so don't take that too literal). You are creating a definitive reason and acting like the source has clearly defined that issue - but it has not. I am not interested in debating whether it's implied or not - that is my point about verifiability or reality. It's not clearly stated, it's an implied conclusion you are trying to draw. As a result, I don't think our edits are all that different, but mine being a little "softer" and less direct, as the source doesn't explicitly state what you are saying it does. I have actually grown very weary in recent weeks of people working hard to prove their point, as you have indicated you are by not waging an edit war. I have a greatly reduced interest in WP these days, due to some of these similar issues. There are far too many other things to worry about in life. With all that said, to respond to your question, yes, the reorganization of the Area Presidency has already happened. As you have noted, I would anticipate there may be some form of official announcement at some point in the relatively near future. Thanks again and welcome back! ChristensenMJ (talk) 06:36, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your reasoning. I will admit that at least I can see your point, such as it is, even if I do not agree with it. Maybe I am inferring things not explicitly said. When in disagreement with anyone, I am always more inclined to believe that any misunderstanding of their viewpoint is my fault and not because they have not clearly explained things to my satisfaction. For as long as we have worked together here on Wikipedia, I have, without exception, found you to be very cognizant of and respectful towards my thoughts and views, and I do appreciate that very much. I have never had reason to doubt that you have ever in any way not acted in good faith, and that is something I cannot say of many of our fellow Wikipedians with whom we have interacted in the past, especially those who have surfaced recently. When I posted the above message, I paused for a moment to look over the voluminous nature of some of the comments critical of you and your work on this page. Those who have said such things about you have not acted in good faith at all. You always have. I want you to know I appreciate that about you.

And I will be the first to admit that I am often too quick to read between the lines and infer things that may not be the case. You make a valid point about the failing health and the "real assignment". However, even if the nature of the "reassignment" was only to allow him the ability to die in the peace and comfort of his own home, in the company of his loving family, the fact remains that the article did mention explicitly that he had been reassigned to Church headquarters. Inference or not, that is the cold, hard fact, and that should be mentioned. I would be more than all right with the idea of leaving my inferences out of the picture.

That being said, I am not as interested in how "real" the assignment was. The verifiable source states that he was reassigned to Church headquarters, whether or not it was merely a token gesture to allow him to pass away at home. That's all I was trying to say. I do apologize if it came out wrong or if I came across as trying to pass my inferences off as actual fact. That was never my intent.

It is amazing to me how the leading brethren of the Church always care so much about what the overseas brethren are experiencing, and that they can anticipate and make allowances for such circumstances as this. I admire that willingness on their part to reorganize that area presidency in more than enough time to allow Elder Porter to come home and spend his final days surrounded by family.

It's sad to realize that, just this year alone, the Church has lost two great actively serving General Authority Seventies. I will never forget the shock I felt to hear on the news of the cancer that would so quickly take Elder Per G. Malm from us. And as beloved as this first Swedish General Authority must have been, Elder Porter has been known and loved for a much longer time, even though he was slightly younger than Elder Malm.

I will anxiously await news of how and with whom the new Europe East Area Presidency was reorganized. You always seem to know about things like that, and that is another of the many things I have always respected about you for as long as I've known you here. I look forward to learning more about that in the not-too-distant future.

I don't know if I've mentioned this before, but the main reason I have had far less time to tend to my regular Wikipedia viewing and editing of late is that I started a blog a while ago, and much of my computer time every day has been devoted to writing blog posts, and reading and responding to comments on these posts. My blog has mostly been about Church news in general and all temple-related developments in particular, but I have taken the opportunity to regularly intersperse these important news updates with news of the personal happenings in the lives of my wife and myself.

If you have time and any desire to check that out, I always welcome new readers of my work. Click here if you are interested in doing so. Thanks so much for explaining yourself, even though you never need to in regards to your conduct with me. Oddly enough, now that I am working again, I will likely have more time to devote to resuming my edit work here. Seems paradoxical, I know, but there it is. Thanks again. --Jgstokes (talk) 08:00, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Some baklava for you![edit]

Baklava - Turkish special, 80-ply.JPEG great editing Ninja247 (talk) 20:11, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughts, but more so your editing efforts, Ninja247. ChristensenMJ (talk) 04:53, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

BYU-Idaho Presidency Transition[edit]

Hey christensenMJ, I wanted to thank you for your work on the Clark Gilbert and Henry J. Eyring articles and make sure that you understood why I kept putting 10 April back in as the transition date. I agree that the new organization doesn't become active until 1 May, but it definitely looks like Gilbert will be operating in-place prior to that date. Check my latest revision notes on Clark Gilbert and check out the sound recording of the press conference I mentioned, embedded at the bottom of the cited press release at, especially at timestamp 06:25. Let me know if you still disagree with my assertion of April 10 as the transition date (from a biographical perspective I guess). Thanks again for all your awesome contributions! TheBertag (talk) 22:10, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts as well, TheBertag. I understand some of the sources have referenced the April 10 date, so there is nothing I can really say to help address that. The best I can do is assure you that the May 1 date is the effective date of his appointment, but recognize that isn't what some of the refs designate. Also, the new organization isn't going to be active on 1 May. There is still way too much to do, with him also still being president of a large institution. When thinking about it in practical terms, it might make some sense to recognize that an entirely brand new organization of this nature won't be up that quickly. The KSL story has some inaccuracies from the standpoint of being "fully operational" etc, and the start date(s) are just part of that. ChristensenMJ (talk) 05:41, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Bruce Hafen[edit]

Hello there~

I see that you reversed the edits made to Bruce Hafen's page. I wasn't finished adding all the inline citations back and the notes and publications.

Could you kindly restore the former edits so we can add the appropriate citations and notes, and publications, and you can revisit it then, to see if it's complete?

Thank you so much.

All of the data presented is sourced and accurate.


Karen fuschia3388 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fuschia3388 (talkcontribs) 17:24, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, thanks so much for the message, Fuschia3388 - and for your efforts to work on the article. I would recommend leaving the citations in place, rather than removing and needing to reinsert them, and adding sourced information, as appropriate. Thanks so much! ChristensenMJ (talk) 17:34, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you! I will pass this on to the one who will check citations for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fuschia3388 (talkcontribs) 19:56, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
I am new to working with the Wiki. I was asked to make changes to the "Biography" section of Bruce C. Hafen's page. The changes that I attempted to make, including the citations and references, came from a text that was submitted by Bruce C. Hafen himself. I see that the current text is missing several citations. I would like to use the text that Bruce C. Hafen submitted as the corrected text which has all of the correct citations in place. Thank you! KLBrown (talk) 19:00, 21 March 2017 (UTC)KLBrown
Thanks for the thoughts. There are a couple issues to note here. One is to be aware of conflict of interest, not only for your own involvement, but also for Bruce Hafen. It can get tricky when individuals are trying to edit an article about themselves. That typically won't be satisfactory in the WP environment. Adding some additional publications is certainly fine. Yes, there are plenty of missing citations, or areas that could benefit from providing a citation. Those are not due to my editing. I did remove a paragraph that tried to convey notability and specifics about teachings or writings he has shared. That also circles back to conflict of interest, along with what is appropriate for an encyclopedia-like article. ChristensenMJ (talk) 21:29, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

French Polynesia[edit]

Hi, You wrote: "French Polynesia is not to France what Hawaii is to US. FP is a semi-autonomous, affiliated territory, Hawaii is an actual US state. Geographical proximity doesn't make same."

This is wrong, as you can read on French_Polynesia#Relations_with_mainland_France:

"Despite a local assembly and government, French Polynesia is not in a free association with France, like the Cook Islands with New Zealand. As a French overseas collectivity, the local government has no competence in justice, university education, security and defense. Services in these areas are directly provided and administered by the Government of France, including the National Gendarmerie (which also polices rural and border areas in European France), and French military forces. The collectivity government retains control over primary and secondary education, health, town planning, and the environment."

Basically, like Hawaii (or any other US state) in the US. More on List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_in_Oceania#Non-sovereign_territories.

Best, A455bcd9 (talk) 22:14, 10 April 2017 (UTC)