User talk:Rich jj

I don't understand the point of providing links to google books for books that they do not provide the complete text for. If there's just snippet views provided, what's the point? Does WP have a policy on this? If the full text is provided, then I can see that would be a useful external link. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree limited previews are marginally useful. Sometimes books on Google Books have snippet views, but I've selected books where you may still access their complete document in original scanned layout, usually by downloading the pdf. Which book are you referring to? User:Rich jj 22:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just some of the ones added to Orson F. Whitney and James E. Talmage. I tried to get full views but could not no matter what I tried, so I deleted the links. You can restore them if I'm mistaken. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Orson F. Whitney's writings, Elias and Life of Heber C. Kimball were removed. I can download both books' PDFs as well as see the full view in the Google Books web display. A few pages are skipped in the web display, but the downloaded PDF shows these as scanned blank pages. I'll probably restore these links since I can't see indications of withheld content. Later, I'll check out James E. Talmage's publication links. Specifically, what parts of these texts have you have seen as incomplete?

OK, I must be doing something wrong. I'll fiddle around with it some more too. Feel free to restore the links, and sorry. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed links to archive.org texts weren't removed, so maybe something strange was happening with your access to GB. It appears all the Talmage GB links were also full views. I'll restore them too. I admire your contributions to WP and no offense taken, Good Ol’factory. --Rich jj (talk) 14:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I got things working now (just so you know), and it was my fault. Sorry again for the inconvenience. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found a source that says Jensen became Church historian in 2005; that the position was not filled by anyone from 1997 to 2005; and that Larsen held the position from 1985 to 1997. See Talk:Church Historian and Recorder. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know that Ken Jennings is a Democrat? I'm not saying he isn't, but there's nothing in the article to support it. (It's always kinda bothered me that categories don't seem to have any convenient way of attaching a source.) RobertJWalker | Talk 23:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps those adding categories (myself included) should take it upon themselves to add the relevant details to the article first. As for sources, I admit I still haven't found the definitive reference where he went public as a Democrat. With overwhelming Republican pressures in his religious community, perhaps he guards his politics. Speculation aside, my sources are mostly inferences and second-hand reports:

• The Salt Lake Tribune reported in 2005:

  Attorney Lew Cramer helped the Republican National Committee recruit 1,000 Utah students, mostly Mormon, for President Bush's re-election campaign in "battlefront states." Then he called "Jeopardy" phenom Ken Jennings. One problem. Jennings is a Democrat.

• From a post on his own blog, Ken Jennings: Confessions of a Trivial Mind, on the day after the 2006 congressional elections, Jennings had high spirits from the Democratic victory in both the House and Senate and Donald Rumsfeld's departure from the White House (follow his hyperlinks).
• The Hedgehog Blog, a conservative political blog, states

  I never watch the game show "Jeopardy," but I know that Ken Jennings of Jeopardy fame is a Mormon and a Democrat. (No, that's not really such an unusual combination.) I suspect Jennings would never vote for Mitt Romney.

• The Mormon Democrat website has a "Hall of Fame" listing famous Mormon Democrats, and Jennings is the last entry.
• Posts and comments on various blogs show a common view of his Democratic affiliation, here, here and here.Rich jj (talk) 16:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. I'm not sure how the information would be integrated into the article, but I'm at least satisfied that some sources actually exist. Wish there was a better way to provide sources for categories. RobertJWalker | Talk 18:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed this issue coming up with some of the things I do. I know that I am stating the truth, however make sure that there is a source. I applaud you for all the work you have done, especially on destabalizing some of Descartes 1979s anti-Mormon articles. He is a BYU grad and an ex-Mormon who is determined to speak ill of those who defend the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham, so I applaud you for having difused his attacks.

On another note, if you want to add someone to a category, remember it is good to mention in the article that they belong in that category first. I think you have done fairly good on this, but that is what this discussion section made me think of. Even if there are links to sources that clearly prove they belong in the category unless it states in the article "Smith is a Latter-day Saint", "Jones attended Yale" or "Philips is a Republican" people are likely to complain about it.Johnpacklambert (talk) 03:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and added the references supporting the category in question (although I would have liked more explicit/direct ones). I agree with your philosophy that articles should explain the categories used, and I know I should clean up my act on this.

Just for the record, I do feel I've contributed good material to Wikipedia, but I have no beef with Descartes1979. One can make good and true contributions to Mormon articles without being sympathetic to it. His views may not match my faith, but I'm not on a crusade against anyone here. I'd like all viewpoints represented and I've really appreciated contributions made by both you and Descartes1979. Kudos to you both. Rich jj (talk) 14:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting Johnpacklambert how you seem to know my mind. To state my POV clearly, I am not here to speak ill of those who defend the Book of Mormon. I am only interested in facts and keeping balance in all of the articles I edit. I welcome any criticism and look forward to working with you and Rich jj in the future. --Descartes1979 (talk) 19:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a personal squabble, I'd rather not have it played out on my talk page. Again, I respect you both greatly as Wikipedians in my same areas of interest, so I'm flattered you'd take notice of me, but please consider the civility of your tone. I don't want this getting in the way of future useful and interesting contributions. Rich jj (talk) 23:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies - feel free to remove my comments.--Descartes1979 (talk) 23:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for your contributions to this article, but the actual meaning of the words in use are under debate on the talk page of that article. Please don't just wade in and apply your interpretation. It's very unlikely that Joseph Smith meant the 'common' interpretation of the word 'professors' (i.e. senior lecturers at a university) so he must have meant something different. The discussion is whether he meant "those who profess", (i.e. everyone who adheres to the religion, a much more common meaning than used now) or merely all the leaders. The only evidence we have is an LDS reference to a Bible verse that implies he meant everyone. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry for the misstep. I should checked first before the edit. In my defense, professors can be any instructors or teachers (not necessarily at a college), which is how I read JS. I doubted JS would think all adherents corrupt, such as his family members, unless corrupt meant mistaken. I carelessly assumed this was straining to criticize JS on everything, but I see now that there is foundation to this issue. Thank you for your careful explanation of the issue to me here. Rich jj (talk) 21:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping out on David W. Patten. :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 18:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, someone actually used the userbox I designed! I was skeptical anyone else ever would. Thanks. ^_^ - Gilgamesh (talk) 20:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks for making it! I'm sure there are many liberal Mormons active within Wikipedia, but I doubt many users look through all the userboxes. Plus, there's the ambiguity about what a liberal Mormon is. Rich jj (talk) 20:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really... I hadn't thought there was much of an ambiguity. When it comes to Utah, "liberal" tends to still mean conservative, but I'm not from the area either. Not from the continent, even. I'd be considered more of a liberal in California or Massachusetts terms, and maybe center-left in European terms. I'm all for lots of kinds of moderation and all. But I'm fundamentally quite liberal in nearly every way. And since liberal is a relative measurement depending on locale, I suppose that even someone I might think of as conservative may still be a liberal Mormon. In particular, I tried to choose userbox graphics (such as the Tree of Life) that represented the abstract theological goal rather than symbols that mainly appeal to fervently conservative (and largely regional Utah) culture. Sometimes there can seem like a complete disconnect between one's intimate understanding and relationship with spiritual and theological truths, and the face of the culture chiefly associated with the religion. How culture and religion can be very separate things (and sometimes mutually contradictory), but in the most conservative Utah culture they are not really seen as separate. Someone close to me once suggested that the Church especially needs many more liberal (and even respectfully critical) voices, and a much greater diversity of views and tolerance and respect thereof. In Utah, I find such tolerance and respect to be just about zero. But a cultural schism need not mean a complete alienation of being somehow Mormon. - Gilgamesh (talk) 08:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also appreciate that your graphics weren't predictable Mormon imagery.

Does "Liberal Mormon" describe one's politics or religion, and to what degree? Are they Democrats? Socialists? Green? Do they reject certain doctrines or want to reform the Church. Do they disagree with some Church policies or culture? Are they are bearded men? Working mothers? War opponents? Evolution proponents? Liberals may like extreme Mormon ideas (Heavenly Mother, female priesthood, Earth's spirit), or doubt Mormon supernaturalism. Maybe they believe more, maybe they believe less. It's hard for me to define, because I think of a wide spectrum. I think both Hugh B. Brown and Sonia Johnson are liberal Mormons, but in very different ways.

As a self-described Liberal Mormon (from California), I also think the Church needs more liberal voices and tolerance of dissent. Some people have a way of respectfully disagreeing with the larger Church, without making enemies or condemning themselves (I don't know how to do that yet). Utah isn't devoid of tolerance, but it's in a strongly conservative region and produces conservative church leaders. And questioning your leaders or finding fault with their positions is quite taboo. - Rich jj (talk) 18:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I guess those are a lot of different things to consider. Perhaps it's less important that someone else thinks you are liberal, and more of what you consider for yourself. And I consider myself a liberal, both socially and politically. I do believe in a Heavenly Mother, though I tread very carefully on that. And I do believe in Earth's spirit. I also believe a variety of other things that, once I said with a calm straight face, had other Mormon editors blowing up at me in talk pages. My orthodoxy is anathema to many of them, as much of their orthodoxy is anathema to me. But I still believe in Joseph Smith, in free agency, and in a highly critical limited geography model, and things like that. I also believe in the Lord's love, and the Lord's acceptance, and the Lord not holding certain things against people. And I believe in individual search, individual pondering, and individual prayer, and the free individual dictates of ones conscience. Sometimes one can be in the Church, and sometimes not—I have understood a church to mean a temporal organization of mortals in commonly agreed worship—something that as such is fallible to the errors of mortal man and periodically collapses and reorganizes. I believe in prophets, seers and revelators but also recognize them as human beings, who are capable of prophecy but also of human error. And I believe that this is the point of common affirmation of sworn-in religious leaders by a vote of hands, and that every one of those hands is just as human. And I believe that, when all else fails, when we are alienated have nothing left but ourselves (as with Joseph Smith in the wood), we can ask for more direct counsel. ...that, and I also believe in social democracy, civil liberties, social justice, adequate welfare for all in need, and the strict separation of religion and state (because when a state becomes subservient to a religion, then the religion becomes subservient to the state, e.g. politics, nationalisms, popular passions and realpolitik). ...and that's my personal take. ^^ I certainly knew that not all liberal Mormons would be carbon clones of me—why should they? There are all sorts of ways people are liberal. - Gilgamesh (talk) 20:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well said. I greatly respect one who can ask hard questions, explore the issue deeply, and have the courage to face conclusions that might challenge our life's plans and assumptions. I also tread carefully on many subjects, and often hesitate to make decisions because I want to grasp both sides of the argument first. On my mission, I remember teaching that the Church was perfect. I don't think so now, because the Church is operated by imperfect people who aren't guided in every breath by the perfect Savior. Even prophets make mistakes, as Joseph Smith certainly insisted, and have need of forgiveness. It is inspiring for me that God guides flawed sinners, because I am a flawed sinner. We all are. This may be a reflection of my more liberal religious perspective, in an culture that can stress perfect performance and exact obedience.

Those who explore LDS history honestly know that the Church has made mistakes and created problems. And I'm not naive enough to think that our modern day is superior. We have problems that someday people will look back on and be thankful are in the past. For example, I'm sure happy I didn't have to live through the black priesthood ban. But hope for a brighter future doesn't make current problems any easier. - Rich jj (talk) 23:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest a reading of Louis Migley's comments on the term "liberal Mormon". He talks about a self-declared group of Liberal Mormons who used to term to describe their "liberation" from the Church. I also think you need to work harder to sepearate The Church for the members. In the Doctrine and Covenants the Lord describes the Church as "The Only true and living Church with which I the Lord am well pleased". So I think we need to bear in mind the Church is perfect, but the members are not.Johnpacklambert (talk) 05:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Either you people have not searched the true beliefs of Affirmation, or you do not accept the word of the Lord. Affirmation holds as a bisic tenet that homosexual relations are acceptable. This is in direct violation of the teachings of the Lord. They try to often speak as open advocates for acceptance, but they want acceptance through rejecting the teachings of the Lord.Johnpacklambert (talk) 05:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC) After thinking about the subject I have realized that people have confused Mormon liberals and liberal Mormons. Being in favor of civil liberties and social justice does not require accepting those who reject the teachings of the Lord. For this reason, Mormon liberals are very different than liberal Mormons. Liberal Mormons are those who reject the historical reality of the Book of Mormon, the objective binding power of revelation and that the Lord means what he says when he limits sexual intimacy to between a man and a woman legally and lawfully wedded as husband and wife. On the other hand, Mormon liberals are people who strongly believe in varous politically liberal positions without using such positions to reject the Church and its teachings, or to undermine the fact that the prophet speaks the word of the Lord.Johnpacklambert (talk) 05:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rich, John Dehlin here. I'd love to chat with you. Ping me if you get a sec. johndehlin@gmail.com

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Boyd Petersen, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Most of the sources appear to be self-published or non-independent sources. Wouldn't appear to pass WP:BIO/WP:POLITICIAN

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. CultureDrone (talk) 12:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Morning Star Award
		For making countless edits to some important articles. Keep up the good work! Eustress (talk) 18:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work with all you edits to LDS Church-related articles!

I second that. Nice work particularly on trying to separate all the mission presidents from the missionary categories. That's a big job! Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the Mark Ashurst-McGee article per your explanation. It would be good if the article could be expanded, because as it stands right now he looks non-notable. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The present form of the article makes it look like his most notable act is being on the Joseph Smith Papers staff. I'll do my best to find some better sources. Thanks! Rich jj (talk) 04:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice improvement on the article. It certainly is quite an improvement! and makes notability more obvious than it was initially. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I try. Rich jj (talk) 00:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{WPLDS invite}} —Eustress ^talk 02:02, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to let you know that I've nominated Mormon Artist and Desert Saints Magazine for deletion. I suspect you'll disagree with me on these, which is fine- I don't want the deletions to sneak by. Cheers, tedder (talk) 18:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My first reaction to your statements about Faith Promoting verses Frank history is that it is a false diachotomy. I would recomend the reading of works by Louis Midgley and Gary Novak (Novak is his last name, I might be off on the first) who point out that the claim to historical accuaracy is built around false assumptions about the knowability of the past.

Even at that, I think you have created a false diachotomy. Fred Woods, Ricahrd I. Kimball and many others tell history how it was, yet especially in the case of Woods he also throwns in quotes like "I had put my idols all upon the atar and there was no turning back". I would say that "faith promoting" and "frank" are not the only, or even necesarily the most likely delineations of forms of history.

A more broad delination would be polemical verses detached. Yet some of the most polemical histories are the works of such authors as D. Michael Quinn (what can be more polemical than an attempt to claim Joseph Smith was a homosexual) and Palmer (aka Peter Pry Jr.).

This explains why some of the aritcles you plan on creating I would never bother making. yet, I am making this post because I have in fact created some of the articles you plan on creating.

Where they still exists, the situation is pretty neutral and I would welcome any helpful edits you can make to the articles.

However, at least two articles you planned on creating I created and have since seen them deleted. One was on Ray L. Huntington. It is a good question to ask, are his writtings enough to make him notable. Personally I thought his bio of William Huntington was quite good, and the work he did with Camille Fronk (Olson) and Brace A. Chadwick on Palestianian families is notable. He also edited a few works such as The Book of Mormon and the Message of the Four Gospels, although he was a co-editor on this and a few other works. He was also a co-author of the LDS Children's Enclyclopedia. Not having read that book I am not sure how good it is. Since I had Dr. Huntington as a professor at BYU I may be too close to him to create an unbissed article, but actually the problem is that someone decided to go on a deletion spree against my recently created articles. They deleted about 16 articles I have written, some of which clearly met establshed notability criteria.

The other aritcle you planned on writing that I did and had deleted was on Dennis A. Wright. That was a complexed write, since there are many Dennis A. Wrights. I assume you planned on writting one on the co-author of the Saints at War series, who has also written several other works. However you might have intended to write an article on the baptist pastor Dennis A. Wright who for a time was head of the Utah Mission, Inc. It gets really confusing, especially since there is another Dennis A. Wright who is an author from Australia and who writes on time. In some cases these authors get garbled together in listings of authors.

I am still hoping to find ways to resore a few of the recently deleted articles, but am mostly thinking once I get someone to give me access to the texts of the articles I had deleted I will move them to mormonwiki.com . That site is largely focused on primariy doctrinal issues, as it was created by the Mormon Good Foundation, but no one seems to have objected to any of the biographies I have created there, even though the only reason to many of them is that they were not being wlecomed in wikipedia.

Well, keep up the work of creating articles in wikipedia. If you need help in preserving an article ask me, and I will try and see what I can do to prevent deletions. I have occasionally managed to dig up more sources or find language in wikipedia's notability guidelines to save articles, but after having seen the article on the current editor of the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion and an article on a one-time majority leader of the Arizona State Senate deleted, I am beganing to realize that even people who tell you to go read the notability guidelines to see why your article was deleted often have no clue what these guidelines actually are.Johnpacklambert (talk) 02:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On historical philosophy:

I agree that faith-promoting history and frank history can be the same thing. I don't believe honest history must be controversial (but it might help). I also don't believe modern historical work should be perfect. Accurate history is problematical because sources are scarce, objectivity is unattainable, and we don't easily identify with the relative culture of people and events in different times and circumstances. I'm a history enthusiast, not a trained historian, so I don't know the accepted methodology and I hope this makes sense to other people too.

I didn't want to set up an all-embracing dichotomy for history, just to reveal my appreciation for history that unabashedly lays out all sides and evidence, "warts and all," to quote Bushman. I think I'm like many Mormons, who love their history and don't want bombshells dismissed or suppressed. Lets talk about the controversy and get it out on the table. I agree with B.H. Roberts view to not fear critical examination, and try to follow where reason takes us. I prefer history that tries to discover rather than advocate.

The reason I feel this way is that I have been very active my entire life, yet didn't know about many significant, unpleasant historical matters. When I found out, it was as told by critics, or in rumors with lots of misinformation. The Church made some efforts to revise, control, suppress or sanitize history to protect the faithful (or the "spiritually weak"). I think this gives control to the critics, who are left to present evidence and drive the conversation. It also makes the Church look like it has something to hide, as if it could be undone by some dangerous information. I don't believe the Church will be damaged by criticism or by having its faults known. We don't have to insist that believers always agree, doctrine never changes, the Church is always perfect, or leaders are always wise and unselfish. My faith will not be destroyed by these things, though it may be changed (maybe even enriched). I am also not threatened by believers or unbelievers who come to different conclusions than me.

Polemical versus detached:

Historiographical integrity could also be measured by this dichotomy, though those labels are as subjective as "faith-promoting" and "frank". I doubt we can achieve detached objectivity since our views are always tainted by our own bias and culture. And authors often pejoratively accuse others of polemics in order to support their own polemical position. This includes some from FARMS, who I enjoy reading and often agree with, including Midgley himself. When Midgley has argumentative showdowns with his opponents and casts others as anti-Mormon, he looks un-detached and polemical. I enjoy and agree with most FARMS publications, but I wish they'd defend their positions more and expose their enemies less. Quinn and Palmer can be answered in respectful civility.

On articles:

I should clarify that I don't intend to create articles on all the red links in my works page. I created the Future creations section some time ago, and it has since expanded to include everything I want to see if it gets created (turns blue). Many of those articles really wouldn't be notable. I just renamed it to the more accurate Things to watch, although I still want to create several of those articles (especially the ones in bold).

I feel bad that some of your creations have been deleted. Your many, many contributions reveal you have much more energy than me. I can't say whether all articles met Wikipedia's notability criteria, but I like increased information availability and I recognize the importance in the LDS community of general authorities, BYU professors, authors and historical figures. I agree that some of your articles definitely should not have been deleted, especially the two you mentioned. I hope those can be appealed since I'm sure they'll be recreated again someday.

MormonWiki:

I really like the idea of MormonWiki as an alternative that is more tolerant of all Mormon information. I have a few reservations that I hope improve over time:

1. Comprehensiveness: It lacks many important Mormon articles that Wikipedia has and needs a lot of expansion on its other articles (this might change someday).
2. Unconnected: It can't link to various non-Mormon subjects that are relevant and informative (civic groups, academic institutions, historical events, etc).
3. Openness: Some topics or claims might not be as "positive" as The More Good Foundation would like.
4. Quality: There are fewer editors to provide peer-reviews, quality improvements, and verify citations (except for in quotations, references aren't even used).

For now, I still feel like Wikipedia's fussiness helps produce a better product, and its visibility makes it a more important place to contribute. Rich jj (talk) 17:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have never had anyone at Mormon wiki gripe about any article I create. Although you do have a point about Midgley, I think you also have to bear in mind how frustrating it is to deal with liars like Quinn. Quinn is really annoying, all the more so because he is praised as a great historian by some. He engages in assuming "gay" meant in 1918 what it does today, and then falsely attributes the term to Evan Stephens to support his malicious attack on that good man. I think you also have to bear in mind both the maliciousness of Quinn in his attack on President Packer and that at heart Migley does not respect built images. In some ways, anti-Mormon writers like Palmer get away with stuff because no one applies the rigourous scrutiny to them they apply to LDS figures. There is a need for open exposure of some people.Johnpacklambert (talk) 05:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC) I guess I also have to take issue with previous claims that Utah is overwhelmingly dominated by conservatives. Ray L. Huntington is a profeesed Democrat, David Magleby is one of the biggest defenders of campaign finance reform, The Deseret News has published a long string of pro-immigration reform articles, and I can go on. Utah Republicans are more pro-immigration reform than Michigan Democrats. The reason Utah Democrats have fared so poorly over the last two decades is because so many of them rejected Bill Orton as not a real Democrat. When a LDS Democrat breaks with the party as clearly as did Orin Hatch with the Republican party on the issue of tobacco regulation than, and only then, will the Democrats be able to get many LDS votes.Johnpacklambert (talk) 05:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to be presumptuous but was wondering if you could throw in a couple of lines there?

And, how I spat out what's currently there is not as fun as REAL ocean surfing but here goes. I'd never noticed A Motley Vision's longstanding article on Wikipedia -- but, after reading Emily Jensen's BYU Studies Bloggernacle review, I discovered it, Motley, and---

↜Just me, here, now … 18:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Great job! I just turned the name blue ("into a link"...) so you really ought to put it in the column in your talkpage project page for "articles created" IMO. ↜Just me, here, now … 22:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Started stubs for BBC and T&S too. Don't bother with your time to reply to my having given you this notice, of course. ↜Just me, here, now … 09:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• ( ^--Ditto if ya get around to writing the two of these, too.) ↜Just me, here, now … 22:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for fixing up and improving the article on Lynn M. Hilton. It is a lot better due to your edits.Johnpacklambert (talk) 20:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a proposed merge that I think would interest you at Talk:Limited geography model#Several merge proposals - my take. I am posting this notice because I saw that you were a recent editor at one of the pages listed below:

• Limited geography model
• Proposed Book of Mormon geographical setting
• Archaeology and the Book of Mormon

--Descartes1979 (talk) 18:00, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My verbage in the three sentences I tossed out for the new article Stay LDS / Mormon sounds too promotional/positive/feature storyish, I think. Could you step in and tweak it to have moreso of the dryness appropriate to an encyclopedia? ↜Just M E here , now 17:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to create an article on her, especially since she was listed as one of the geniuses of Joseph Smith documents along with Dean Jessee and Ron Esplin by Robin Jensen as quoted in the Mormon Times. However, since Best spent the last 35 years working in the Church archives, and is an expert on documents it is looking like it will be hard to find enough info on her to create an article, especially since people are going to say that The Mormon Times being part of the Deseret News, which is owned by the LDS Church, which employees her, creates a situation that some will claim lacks "intellectual independence". I am trying to make sure I find all leads before creating the article, so if you have any advice on sources I would appreciate it. Thank you for your help. Johnpacklambert (talk) 19:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think she is an ideal subject for a Wikipedia article. She hasn't really published doesn't seem to have visible influence. As you note, her career has been working behind the scenes in the Church Archives, so there is little mention of her anywhere. What I found I've divided into these groups:

Biographical

• Bio from the Joseph Smith Papers
• Owner of a historic home in Centerville, which is a registered historic site with the city. See also:

Known for her documentary/archival skills

• Robin Jensen called her a genius in the field of documentary editing. -- I believe this is the article you mentioned.
• Jensen again calls her a mentor and "tremendous scholar in her own right". This is from an interview conducted by the LDS blog By Common Consent.
• Examined the John V. Long papers prior to their potential sale.

Found in historian circles

• Was a council member of The Utah Women's History Association in 1983.
• Author of "Report of the Survey of Selected Territorial Records Extant at the Utah State Archives" in 1987.See also: This may suggest she has worked with the Utah State archives or historical society.
• Identified as one of the numerous BYU/Church people who helped in some way with the new Massacre at Mountain Meadows book.

Writings

• Author of "Guide to sources for studies of Mormon women: In the Church Archives, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints", copies of which are in select libraries.See also:See also:

Quoted/cited by LDS/Utah writers

• Quoted in another MormonTimes article on the condition of the first Joseph Smith journal.
• Gave opinion on the provenance of an archival document.
• Quoted in Church News article about Church acquisition of some artifacts.
• Quoted on the same story, this time in the Liahona.

She's really not showing up very much. I'm not sure where else to search, but you can try Google using "christy best" followed by some logical word like byu, centerville, mormon, church, lds, utah, archive, document, manuscript, etc. You'll have to wade through a ton of irrelevant junk and you may not find anything worth using. I can't say the sources I found can establish notability. I'm actually interested in knowing what she did at the archives during the 70s, when Leonard Arrington was around. Good luck. Rich jj (talk) 22:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on People from Mulberry, Florida requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Intelligentsium 22:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that's my mistake. Please delete it. ——Rich jj (talk) 22:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments at WP:BLPN#Death of Bill Sparkman are not unwarranted or misplaced at all. In fact, you raised some valid points. Thank you for contributing to the discussion, and I hope you will participate in more of the discussions on our noticeboards. These discussions help familiarize users with the finer points of applying our policies while also helping us keep an eye on articles that may need some attention. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 11:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would just like to thank you for all the work you have done to expand the article on Dr. Law. It has been greatly inproved through your work.Johnpacklambert (talk) 05:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! ——Rich jj (talk) 21:52, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	Thanks for your care and diligence, especially in editing LDS articles. John Foxe (talk) 01:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--John Foxe (talk) 01:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm honored. ——Rich jj (talk) 19:39, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this fix. I think I meant to re-add that one, but I guess I forgot. My intent was just to re-add the Category:American Latter Day Saints. In the future I'll just add the category back rather than reverting someone else's edit that removed it. By the way, I find your work outstanding. Whenever I see your name pop up on one of the pages on my watchlist, I always know it was a good edit. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since I am always impressed with your contributions, I am truly proud of such a compliment. Thanks. ——Rich jj (talk) 11:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Man, it sure is annoying when people point the guns inward. I find it very frustrating having people attack my position because they are LDS and don't think the same way I do. The term for that is condescending, and it is very poor etiquette.

Please recognize when you do that you instantly paint an image of what common LDS thought and POV is. But seriously, do not assume you represent my opinion or POV just because we are both LDS. In fact, judging from your willingness to distance yourself from being a "Utah Mormon" (another condescending if not stereotypical thing to do)I am left to assume you do not represent mainstream LDS thought. If that is the case, please include that in your writing so that individuals like myself aren't put in their place by an associate.

You write that you assume good faith. I don't see it this time.

I mean seriously, do you really think if you read that article to most LDS in the Church they would be happy with its tone, scope and sequence? If so we are unlikely to agree on anything. If not, please don't ever try to speak for my POV again. They appear on opposite sides of the issue.

You just undermined in one posting my dignity, my contribution to the discussion, and any influence for good I may have potentially had.

You stated in your first sentence an inkling you ought not to have posted. That inkling I would call inspiration. next time, please, listen to it.

Not impressed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadiandy1 (talk • contribs) 02:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thank you very much for working on this article. i kind of rewrote some of it to be more 'just the facts' style.. figured i cant go wrong with the basic facts, you know? thank you again. Decora (talk) 13:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Rich, I was wondering if you could answer some questions of mine with regard to the Book of Abraham? You seem to have some background with regard to the subject. Let me know! --63.226.104.225 (talk) 20:57, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will help where I can. I may have my opinions but I'm not much of an expert. I'm certainly willing to try to find more authoritative sources related to any specific questions you may have. ——Rich jj (talk) 03:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'll get right to it...

1. Why did Joseph seemingly misidentify the figures in Facsimile #3?

2. Why did Joseph's engraver try to input the missing text in the outside edge of Facsimile #2?

3. What do you make of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers?

--63.226.104.225 (talk) 16:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an authority so I might not know of several major sources on this topic. I have found several pro-Mormon sources by actual scholars, though I expect any writings on these contested issues to be challenged by other compentent experts, inside and outside the Church.

1. Articles dealing with Facsimile 3. It looks like they see problems with interpreting the figures as simply from Book of the Dead 125.

• "Facsimile 3 and Book of the Dead 125" by John Gee in Astronomy, Papyrus, and Covenant (2005)
• "All the Court's a Stage: Facsimile 3, a Royal Mumming" by Hugh Nibley in Abraham in Egypt (1981, 2002)

2. Articles dealing with other facsimiles, including Facsimile 2. I didn't read these but they might discuss the missing text in the outside edge.

• "Facsimiles From the Book of Abraham" by Michael D. Rhodes in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism (1992)
• "The Facsimiles of the Book of Abraham" by John Gee in A Guide to the Joseph Smith Papyri (2000)
• "Understanding Facsimile 2 of the Book of Abraham" (no link) by James R. Harris in the Sidney B. Sperry Symposium on the Pearl of Great Price (1982)
• "A Translation and Commentary of the Joseph Smith Hypocephalus" by Michael D. Rhodes in BYU Studies (1977). [Revised and updated manuscript from 1994 in the BYU special collections.]

W. V. Smith of the Book of Abraham Project gave his opinion:

"... Smith gave instructions to his woodcut engraver on the missing portions of Facsimile No. 2, evidently telling him to insert some characters for the sake of aesthetics but Joseph Smith made no attempt to interpret those characters on the facsimile, which he certainly would have done if he was as daring and/or as stupid as many critics style him."

"[Smith] never tried to claim [Facsimile No. 2] was accurate... He produced, or one of his assistants produced, an aesthetically pleasing symmetrical document ... and Joseph scrupulously avoids claiming to translate or explain any resulting gibberish!" (boap.org)

3. I don't have any strong feelings of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers. My take is that Joseph Smith didn't know Egyptian and organized an effort to devise the papyri's language, with hopes that God would reveal the answers when they studied it out in their minds. My feeling is that Mormons are free to accept or reject the KEP, along with much of the fringe in Mormonism. Others might be less generous, such as critics ("This disproves Mormonism!") or fundamentalists ("The KEP is like scripture!"). Nibley seems to be widely cited on this topic:

• "The Meaning of The Kirtland Egyptian Papers" by Hugh Nibley in BYU Studies (1971)

——Rich jj (talk) 22:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know this is a bot, so this reply is for my own reference/memory. I agree with this deletion since an improved version has replaced this file in the Deseret Book article. (Also stated in the old file's talk page.) ——Rich jj (talk) 14:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to say you're welcome on the new Deseret Book images. I've been using the educational version of Adobe Creative Suite to extract the SVG images from public Adobe PDF files from LDS-related entities. If you don't know much about SVG, it is a vector graphic which means a small file with mathematical formulas to draw the letters and shapes, so it can scale to any size and avoids pixelated images. Glad to get some feedback on the work. :D GreenwoodKL (talk) 23:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rich -

Feel free to re-format/contribute to the article. It's been a couple of years since I started it and my scripting skills are quite out of date. I would be happy to provide further source references. I was attempting to gather material that was relevant to the matter. I don't think there has been much non-LDS scholarly review of the Hypo, so opinions of mainstream Egyptologists have been hard to find. I chose to use observations and commentary of Egyptian language and writing by Wilkinson, Betro and others as they apply to the images and let the reader decide how accurate Joseph Smith's explanations come to the current understanding of hieroglyphics.

DWmFrancis (talk) 05:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If ya might be so inclined...I think it would be really cool if ya could throw a few words out there into article space--- um, say, for an article stubs or even mini-stubs for one or another of

• Lowell C. "Ben" Bennion?
• or--Jessie L. Embry,
• Kristine Haglund,
• David J. Howlett,
• Edward H. Jeter,
• Ardis E. Parshall,
• Jonathan A. Stapley,
• Jared Tamez and/or
• Stanley J. Thayne--sometime in the near future! (like, um...today? lol)

I was able to stub

• Robert H. Briggs (and maybe somewhat sloppily, actually)--and also do a super mini-stub for
• William P. MacKinnon, btw. (Sort of.) And you might also notice that I sort of cheated w/regard to Hagland, Parshall, and Stapley. That is, I did a quick paraphrase of their bottom-of-the-page bio blurbs from Patheos and instead of making them into stand-alone blp's, I simply put a quick biographical paragraph in about them where they'd been listed already by somebody as contributors to By Common Consent. (I added a template:Anchor for each one so that I could redirect their name directly to their teensy blurb.)

  Anyway, the reason I took a stab at MacKinnon and Briggs is because I've read their stuff (just one paper of McKinnon's but four or five of Briggs's). So I had that feel to go with on them. But I have no idea who these other guys are----well...I of course read a lot of Ardis Parshall's blogposts, too, and know of Stapley and Hagland through that means, i.e., blogs, as well.

  Anyway, Rich, if you're able to, thanks! Otherwise, if you'd not be able to do it right away, no problem.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 17:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I did this article today, btw: Mormonism: A Historical Encyclopedia. It needs citations, eventually, tho.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 00:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am very interested in these subjects. I was looking forward to Ardis Parshall's encyclopedia but didn't know it had already been published. My time is very limited so I don't know if I will be able to address these articles anytime soon. ——Rich jj (talk) 03:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A user at this IP recent opened a discussion with the LDS WikiProject about creating an article about LDS Tabernacles. In trying to prepare for creating that, I noticed a link on one of the tabernacle images that pointed to User:Rich jj/Sandbox/Tabernacles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It looks like you have already done extensive research on this, and have a good working draft; I think your table is also a great idea. Since this is in your userspace (and has been since April) I assume you think that this may not ready yet for the article mainspace. Would you be willing to allow others to work with you on this page within your user space &/or would you be willing to copy this article over to a LDS Wikiproject page where interested parties could then help with it? -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 01:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would love others to help edit this page in my userspace. I'd like to keep it here since I already have an extensive history of edits that could be useful for me to find past information that I may have removed.

The reason I haven't finished this is that:

1. The table is too massive and needs to be refined/condensed while still being somewhat sortable.
2. I haven't had access to an important 2005 thesis on the subject by Aaron McArthur (listed in the sources at the bottom of the article)
3. Sections haven't been written for their historical development/significance and cultural role. I have only gathered some notes on those topics.

Do you think others would help improve and refine my article and prepare it for mainspace? ——Rich jj (talk) 14:37, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you post comments to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement#LDS Tabernacles like the one above, I think you'd get several people that are likely to help. Since it's your userpage, I'd rather that you announce it directly, rather than me mention it, if that's OK. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 23:45, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to do that next week or so. ——Rich jj (talk) 02:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. ——Rich jj (talk) 18:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I created Tabernacle (LDS Church), as I think it's important to have this available ASAP. I'd suggest also moving the list you've created to its separate public page. You could leave the sandbox page for personal (historical edit) reference, but it'd be nice to have at least a limited tabernacle list readily available... ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 23:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I remember that you had commented somewhere or another that sometimes you've encountered !voters in rfds that take LDS sources as overly local or regional to help establish notability, or something to that effect. I used a statistical approach--citing the 2% of the US pop that are LDS--in an rfd here, which seems a reasonable rebuttal to that sentiment IMO.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 22:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Brahman-Atman Yoga is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brahman-Atman Yoga (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. – Shannon Rose ^Talk 10:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Rich,

Just a question for clarity. You identify as a "Liberal Mormon." I am trying to wrap my brain around the term. Do you mean you are a Liberal politically (i.e. Libertarian a la Ron Paul or Liberal a la Harry Reid)? Or am I right that is it more of a sense that you are comfortable looking at the full expanse of Church History to a point that the imperfections of the early brethren don't keep you up nights worrying about such things?

Either way I am a little concerned that we might be wise to look for a better term. I say this because I think people outside the Church context might not see this merely as a healthy reflection of a Church which has a broadening culture and tolerance and is not scared to look to its past, but that it might be interpreted as a Church which is forming (or devolving) into factions and special interest groups. Remember that most modern churches have gone through (or are going through) division, schisms, and reorganizations. So it wouldn't be surprising that this kind of terminology could confuse people.

I commend you for your willingness to question and discover things as they really are. I think that is the scientific method alluded to in the Book of Mormon's "Faith as a seed" analogy. I just wonder if the label you are using for your approach to spiritual discovery is perhaps a possible stumbling block for those following behind you. I'm in no way suggesting you hide who you are, merely that you're prudent in the way you self-label so as not to confuse.

Kind wishes,

Oh yeah, you seemed interested in the KEP. Thought you might be interested in http://www.mormontimes.com/article/16366/FAIR-conference-Secret-Mormon-codes-and-Egyptian-papers --Canadiandy talk 06:15, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the first time that I've totally overlooked a comment on my talk page for years. Maybe nobody will see this, so this reply is mostly for me to explain something to myself.

Personal Reasons: My use of the Liberal Mormon userbox is something more bold than I'm normally inclined. I don't like to stake ideological claims, especially publicly. But you, User:Canadiandy1, sensitively identified a number of my reasons. I'm more a moderate than a radical, but I am probably more politically liberal in my thinking than is expected for a Mormon (based on what I imagine is the common stereotype). I believe in asking questions and coming to personal answers, which may diverge from orthodox interpretations. I believe in an evolving faith that resonates from my heart and mind, beyond merely accepting external principles. I want to have an open mind (whether I do is another matter).

Public Reasons: But another reason I keep this userbox (despite reconsidering it several times) is a show of support for other Latter-day Saints who are liberal (politically and spiritually). I want them to feel they are not alone and that they should keep their legitimate place within Mormonism and within the LDS Church. It is common for the church to seem authoritarian, or for members to assume everyone is a strong conservative, and in my shy way I want to be evidence to the contrary. There are a number of young people who have given up on the Church in recent years, and I think the Church would be better off if they stayed, and I think often they would be better off if they stayed. If someone's rigid social or doctrinal model for the Church breaks, they don't have to discard it entirely but instead they may find a more flexible model that works well. They can keep their family and community relationships, and keep an open dialogue and respect for people who they might be inclined to flatly disagree with.

The Problem With Labels: But I also acknowledge your point that using labels like "Liberal Mormon" can signal that there are rivaling factions in the Church. I wonder if someone who said they were a "Liberal Catholic" might be seen as opposing their institutional church. Labels bring assumptions, which can be walls that distance us, making us believe we are miles apart, when in reality we may be more alike than we think. Should we instead say "Catholic who is liberal", or just simply "Catholic"? But we still need words that can be brief descriptions without a lengthy clarification. Maybe the problem is that the phrase seems so contrasting, since Mormons are assumed to be so conservative. Has there been a rift? (To clarify that I am within the Church's big tent, I also have an ordinary LDS userbox.)

I still hope that in quietly referring to liberal Mormons it makes it more ordinary and provides further evidence that loyal Mormons do not have to fit the cultural/social/political mold. I suspect that there are liberals throughout the Mormon people (more than you'd think, though still a minority), but they hide it or feel they don't belong. That's what I want changed. ——Rich jj (talk) 15:18, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rich, I'm sorry for any inconvenience caused by the newsletter delivery. I'm going to personally unsubscribe you to prevent future deliveries. This is the first issue of the relaunch and I appreciate your patience as we get things straightened out. – Lionel ^(talk) 22:36, 5 March 2012 (UTC) Incidentally, it is not a Catholic newsletter--WPCatholic was just featured for January. It is for all Christianity-related subprojects. LDS will be featued in an upcoming issue. – Lionel ^(talk) 22:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for unsubscribing me. I could have done it myself but didn't get around to it (after I learned it was an option). I still don't think I should even have to unsubscribe when I am a member of WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement, not WikiProject Christianity. Maybe it's okay to auto-subscribe members within your own project, but not members of affiliated projects too. ——Rich jj (talk) 23:44, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely see your point about WP:X sending newsletters out to other projects. I just wanted to share with you that the newsletter is not a WP:X newsletter, nor a "mainline Christianity" newsletter, but a newsletter for Christianity on Wikipedia. This is similar to the newly established Christianity Noticeboard at WT:XNB. And let me also share with you that this is a good thing. How? WP:LDS was founded in 2004, has 4 FAs, 97 members and 3983 articles. I think there could be and should be more LDS articles and more LDS FAs. But you need more members. When this newsletter hits the talk pages of your members most of them will receive an offwiki email. A precious few of your inactive members will login to find out what's going on at WP:LDS. Hopefully a few of those will return to active editing.

Believe it or not the newsletter has been well received. We have received as many compliments as complaints, of which there were about 10. This mailing was huge: the recipient-to-complaint ratio is only 0.7% And we got over 400 pageviews. Oh--between you and me I was not in favor of the Lent thing--but the editor-in-chief was insistent. Anyway if just 1 editor returns to active editing, whether at LDS, or SDA, or even Salem Witch Trials, then this would have been worth it. I hope sharing the big picture gives you a new appreciation of the possibilites. – Lionel ^(talk) 06:49, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there - I am the Director, Community Advocacy for the Wikimedia Foundation, the non-profit that supports Wikipedia. It's very important that I talk to you - would you please email me at philippewikimedia.org at your earliest opportunity? Again, it's very important and urgent that I speak with you. Thank you. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 06:41, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm adding back the list of songs to Hymns of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (1985 book), I see you have made a table of all of the songs/writer/composers. Are you interesting in adding that?Naraht (talk) 14:51, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Third Convention, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Thomas W. Murphy (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) 09:04, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Marlin K. Jensen may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Magazine | url=http://www.ldsmag.com/lds-church-history/article/1/11068 | accessdate=2014-05-22}}}</ref> Terryl Givens said of his legacy, "Marlin Jensen has done more to further the cause of

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:06, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jeff Benedict, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Doubleday. 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) 09:02, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sterling M. McMurrin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Union Theological Seminary. 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) 09:30, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited June Conference, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aaronic priesthood. 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) 09:09, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

• On the Mormonism in the 20th century page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

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) 00:24, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

• On the Mormonism in the 20th century page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

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) 00:19, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Mormonism in the 19th century

added a link pointing to Preston

Mormonism in the 20th century

added a link pointing to Palmyra, New York

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mormonism in the 20th century, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Moroni. 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) 09:01, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mormonism in the 19th century, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mutual Improvement Association. 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) 09:00, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
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) 13:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As someone interested in the List of ministers of the Universal Life Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), I thought I'd let you know an RFC has been started over reliable sources. Please join in Talk:List_of_ministers_of_the_Universal_Life_Church#RFC:_Reliable_sources here. Me-123567-Me (talk) 23:21, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mormonism in the 19th century, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page W. W. Phelps. 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) 09:16, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your recent edits to Priesthood (LDS Church) because I believe they are misleading. A First Presidency letter states: "When a child living with such a same-gender couple has already been baptized and is actively participating in the Church, provisions of Section 16.13 do not require that his or her membership activities or priesthood privileges be curtailed or that further ordinances be withheld." Thus, I think the information you added would apply more to Ordinance (Latter Day Saints) or Baptism (Latter Day Saints). Thanks for your efforts to help the LDS Wikiproject. FallingGravity (talk) 19:17, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't had many reverts, but I am really glad you pointed this out to me. I had no idea about this further clarification. It seems that children in same-sex households may receive all ordinances as long as (1) they had already been baptized (presumably before entering such a household), and (2) they are actively attending church. And greater discretion is given to local leaders to determine who qualifies, with instruction to keep the best interests of the child. This seems to nullify many criticisms of the new policy, since I would think that children who are unbaptized or do not attend church and are living with same-sex parents are extremely unlikely to want to join or be ordained. (Although, I guess I could imagine scenarios where a divorced parent, or grandparents, or aunts/uncles want the child to be involved with the church.) Now I'm not sure how to discuss the new policy over at Mormonism in the 21st century. It was already so complicated and lengthy, and each clarification adds more layers. ——Rich jj (talk) 13:19, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look more into the 21st century entry. I think describing the changes as revelation there is mostly unnecessary because I'm sure the church would say that all policy changes are revelation. All such details probably have their place somewhere in the article Homosexuality and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. FallingGravity (talk) 14:32, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have a strong position on this, but my take was that this wasn't clear from the beginning. Amidst conflicting unofficial early reports and later PR clarifications, some suggested that this was merely a policy, subject to change or refinement. It wasn't announced from the pulpit/Ensign/General Conference, and the Handbook is a leadership guide, not scripture. So President Nelson's brief comments may have helped settle this question for some. Though it is not canonized, it is "the mind of the Lord and the will of the Lord." There's room for technical discussion about what that means (particularly in light of the later clarifications), but it does suggest the Church stands behind the change, gives it doctrinal weight, and opposes the idea that it was a management misstep. Again, I'm not arguing the CES comments must be mentioned here, but I think it should be mentioned somewhere on WP, perhaps at Homosexuality and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, though that article is still missing several details about the policy. ——Rich jj (talk) 13:49, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

• On the Neylan McBaine page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

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) 00:15, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Latter Day Saint periodicals, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page RLDS. 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) 09:26, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Community input is politely requested for Jimbo's tkpg with regard ur expertise in gen. notability per wp:GNG & applicabilities of eg wp:PROF, wp:AUTH, etc. w/in AfD's
... here: User talk:Jimbo Wales#Suggested fix.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 00:43, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I.e.: Is Matthew Grow, editor of The Council of Fifty, Minutes, March 1844–January 1846 (The Church Historian's Press, which is an imprint of Deseret Book; 2016), notable? Is Benjamin E. Park, who reviews him here: "The Mormon Council of Fifty: What Joseph Smith’s Secret Records Reveal" (Religion & Politics, September 9, 2016)? Please chime in on a way to determine such questions in a much more consistent manner than at present...here: User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Suggested_fix.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 19:02, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I read through everything I could find on that talk page, and in the AfD discussion, and I don't know where to come down on this. I don't know whether the notability criteria should be challenged or reduced to simpler data inputs, or whether they should be guidelines that allow for argumentation. Honestly, I think Park might be able to merit his own article, but it's not a slam dunk. Grow has a better case since he's been at it longer and has published several books, which afforded him more opportunity to build recognition and citations and win some awards (MHA, AML, Evans Biography). Grow's recent documentary books on Relief Society and the Council of 50 are significant and I expect them to reap many citations (in time). Park is influential in his own way, primarily as a commentator on Mormon history and politics in blogs or editorial journalism, but he has also published multiple journal articles and served in scholarly societies. But his positions have been relatively junior and he is not yet a main author of any books, even though insiders know him and probably expect a promising, long career (WP:TOOSOON?). I know that is not supposed to be the final criteria for notability, but it is often used as a rule of thumb, and voters don't have to justify their rationale. I think your strongest arguments were not given full consideration, but they might have been lost while wading through so much debate. As I see it, Ben Park is a strong up-and-coming voice in the new generation of young Mormon Studies scholars. He goes way back with Juvenile Instructor and was in the new Maxwell Institute restructuring. He has published several papers and articles, and he is quoted in the news media and academic papers, but his work or person might not be the direct subject of secondary sources. I think Park's "depth-of-coverage is not substantial", but I don't know whether your multiple listed independent sources are each "more than trivial". My opinions are somewhat flimsy in this debate. ——Rich jj (talk) 22:18, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think your somewhat more exclusionist of bent than my own does not align all that well with what it says at wp:BIO, Rich jj, but I certainly appreciate your take. In any case, I've posted again on Jimbo's forum here: User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Jimmy_Wales.2C_please_offer_your_opinion, for whatever it might be worth.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 23:03, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Owing2 2116 AML scholarship book honors for best non-fiction LINK. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:42, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dialogue (journal). 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) 11:10, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Rich jj,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Ken Garff Automotive Group for deletion, because it doesn't appear to contain any encyclopedic content. Take a look at our suggestions for essential content in short articles to learn what should be included.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Arbustum (talk) 06:35, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the page about the Hymnal to use titles and copied from the lds.org site. It appears you were working on a project like that and I would *love* for you to look over my work and help improve it. I'm a non-member husband of an LDS woman.Naraht (talk) 14:46, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on a study of political motivations and how they affect editing. I'd like to ask you to take a survey. The survey should take no more than 1-2 minutes. Your survey responses will be kept private. Our project is documented at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_%2B_Politics.

Your survey Link: http://uchicago.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9S3JByWf57fXEkR?Q_DL=56np5HpEZWkMlr7_9S3JByWf57fXEkR_MLRP_brZ0V6EwEhnGFcp&Q_CHL=gl

I am asking you to participate in this study because you are a frequent editor of pages on Wikipedia that are of political interest. We would like to learn about your experiences in dealing with editors of different political orientations.

Sincere thanks for your help! Porteclefs (talk) 12:42, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ulisses Soares--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:11, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rich jj! A long while back, you'd made some constructive edits to the Magnetar Capital article and participated in discussions on its Talk page; I'm wondering if you still have any interest in this topic? If so, would you be open to reviewing a request to update the article to give a more current picture of the company. I have had several discussions with editors on the Talk page, and one of the points editors have raised is how the article does not actually explain how the company exists today. There has been some great discussion on the Talk page. As disclosure, I do have a financial conflict of interest, as I am here on behalf of Magnetar Capital as part of my work at Beutler Ink. Are you interested in reviewing this request? 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 19:54, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done This is has been done. Thanks! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 21:28, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sigma Gamma Chi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Delta Phi Kappa (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:11, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• https://www.hjnews.com/news/delta-phis-come-home/article_b5c5f6cf-cbd7-540d-ae19-f61f90cc5b5e.html

Would that be enough to start?Naraht (talk) 15:06, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I came across User:Rich jj/Sandbox/List of tabernacles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints because it was in the "what links here" at new Lehi Tabernacle article that I just started. Hey, it looks like a great list-article, could it be moved to mainspace? --Doncram (talk) 08:31, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And I see linked User:Rich jj/Sandbox/Tabernacles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which also looks good.

I have myself created many big list-articles, and the list of LDS tabernacles is the kind of thing I would start, although probably not doing as good a job as you have already. I usually just work in mainspace. Hmm, i wonder, if you are not active right now in Wikipedia, if I could move them to mainspace anyhow? Better than creating a duplicative, separate list in mainspace. --Doncram 08:54, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Sadly I never finished my work on these pages, but I would love to find a way to do so. I put an enormous amount of work into trying to nail down all the messy details. I still do not believe it is ready for publication, because there are numerous conflicting basic details or poor sources in the article. For example, one brief mention in a book or article or paper might say Such-And-Such Tabernacle was built in 1880, while another article says 1877, and another says 1882. Sometimes the authors are mistaken, or thinking of the beginning of construction, or the end of construction, or a particular event during construction, or the dedication. This is even the case when referencing the "experts", all of which were cited in my work in these articles 5 years ago. What do we say when there is such basic non-uniformity and the references don't explain themselves? I believe that we should find reliable sources, and those should overrule all the disagreeing references that only mention the tabernacle in passing. We are unlikely to find reliable, secondary sources where each tabernacle is the primary subject of the source. Some tabernacles are famous, and some are not, but they are all part of the notable tradition of Latter-day Saint tabernacles. But community histories are often helpful in providing better research and better explanations that clearly document more of the details of these buildings. But those histories are often not available online and sometimes require traveling to a regional library or local library in that community. Time consuming.

I think this article could be ready for mainspace if we: (1) fix the remaining messy dates, since this is such basic information and shouldn't be fraught with disagreement; (2) clean up the poor references, especially broken links where we can no longer tell what the reference even was; (3) reference the more current sources over the last 5 years. That last one includes Utah journalism that sometimes writes updated pieces with expert quotes, and scholarly work like books, theses, and scholarly journals (UHQ, JMH, BSQ, Dialogue). New source material has been published, but I haven't put in the time to keep current with it, and we'd have to scan through recent published work to identify the new sources. ——Rich jj (talk) 07:01, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank u for ur reply and notice to my talk page. i appreciate ur conscientiousness then and now. Hmm, now there are also Tabernacle (LDS Church) (started in 2010), Category:Tabernacles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Utah (with 16 members now) and Category:Tabernacles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (with just 5 non-Utah ones), and Template:Latter-day Saint Tabernacles (started in 2010, a navigation template which is a stripped-down kind of list). There is essay wp:CLNT about how categories, lists, and navigation templates are complementary things.

I have not compared them, but perhaps your User:Rich jj/Sandbox/Tabernacles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints should be merged with Tabernacle (LDS Church)? I assume urs has some different sources, material, wording? And perhaps open a wp:RM to rename/move the mainspace one?

It remains there is no proper list-article in mainspace. Order-wise, I would be inclined to move yours _right now_ to mainspace and link to it from the navigation template and the "Tabernacle (LDS Church)" article. And per your concerns about dates and sources, put on it an overall "under construction" tag, and insert a bunch of small other warning-type tags about each broken reference, etc., into each row as necessary. And work ahead from there over the next month or two, going back and forth with each separate tabernacle article toimprove them too and resolve the dates and sources issues. And post at Talk pages of individual tabernacles about their issues and recruit other editors to help.

I would be less happy to ever help on a draftspace list which might not ever get promoted to mainspace, and could be "beaten" at any time by anything crappy being started in mainspace. Been there, done that. :(

Note, a mainspace list-article does not have to be perfectly self-contained. Where there is an existing separate tabernacle article, a list-article row can/should be a summary, and does not even need to repeat the detailed referencing in the separate tabernacle article. Perhaps issues like source discrepancies about construction dates should be raised as academic-type notes (using "ref group=note" and "reflist|group=note" to display a "Notes" section, as opposed to regular source footnotes) in the individual tabernacle articles. The list-article row should just choose one date to display, not get bogged down in detail that is properly brought up at the individual article. When issues are properly resolved or explained at individual articles, then remove warning tags in the corresponding list-article row.

Could we possibly work together along those lines? I do hope we can capture, build upon your good work. :) --Doncram (talk) 14:32, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I'm open to having my work moved into mainspace. I'm self conscious about how messy it looks right now, and an unfavorable reader can use a lot of valid criticisms against the article. It got messy because once I started into the research I found so much inconsistency among the best sources. I think it would be helpful to include the tags you mention: (1) "under construction" at the top, (2) in-line warnings for broken references, and (3) move unresolved dates into notes. For that last one, that could mean that several tabernacles would not have a year at all (for construction beginning, completion, or sale/destruction), but just an endnote describing the different cited years for those affected events. This could be a good starting point.

I'm also worried that a reader might see the incomplete data and just enter data from one of the sources, not recognizing that some of those details don't agree with some other sources. But those disagreements on the cited facts can be worked out on the talk page or in reverts or edit comments. In the end, it will be nice to actually put these articles to use and continue work on them.

As you said, volunteers are more likely to want to help if it's in mainspace, instead of draftspace that might never get published. I am also interested the resulting mainspace article still having me as the author of the baseline work. I'm a little embarrassed by my own vanity about this, but I really did put a lot of work and passion into this for a few years, and I'd like my account in the edit history as introducing the text instead of another account that just copied it over to mainspace. I'm thinking a move would accomplish this for the List article. For the User:Rich jj/Sandbox/Tabernacles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints general article, I think a wp:RM might work. Perhaps I could take a little time to copy my paragraphs into the existing Tabernacle (LDS Church) article, along with the tags indicating work in progress. ——Rich jj (talk) 15:16, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Rich jj. I saw your unblock request on the OTRS system. Your Rich jj account is not blocked though a hardblock of your chosen IP seems to keep you from editing. Though it's a bit unorthodox, I have granted you temporary WP:IP block exemption which will at least for the moment allow you to edit through the blocked IP. If you can respond here, please do so because long term we should figure out a better way for you to access the system. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:16, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I am grateful for this IP block exemption, and I too hope we can figure out a better long-term solution. At the moment, I do not understand what you mean by "Your Rich jj account is not blocked though a hardblock of your chosen IP seems to keep you from editing." My network seems to perpetually use IPs from multiple blocked ranges (associated with Amazon, I think). These ranges clearly look blocked to me, and I do not have a choice in what IP I am assigned by this network. Let me know any additional input I can provide. ——Rich jj (talk) 13:00, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you made it here. But how does it happen that you are editing from an Amazon range? If you prefer not to discuss here, you could turn on Wikipedia email in your preferences and we could continue privately. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 00:33, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know why this network gives me an internet-facing IP address from those Amazon ranges. I am inside an organization's network, which has its own IT department that designed and manages this network with an eye toward security and risk isolation. I don't have detailed knowledge of their network design and why IT uses these IP addresseIs, since I'm just a user on their network. I have used this organization's network to edit Wikipedia in the past, so I assume they transitioned to this address range sometime this year. ——Rich jj (talk) 15:23, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:40, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Clark Planetarium & IMAX® Theatre and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 15#Clark Planetarium & IMAX® Theatre until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. BD2412 T 04:45, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Brant Gardner, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brant Gardner until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Selected Manifestations, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Selected Manifestations until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]