Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:01, 11 October 2007

Archives
Archive 1 - Oct 2004 - Apr 2006 Archive 2 - May 2006 - Dec 2006 Archive 3 - Dec 2006 - Jul 2007

Recent Comment

RE: Matthew Joyce. Sorry I think there has been a misunderstanding- he is not the BROTHER of Ed Joyce, he is the COUSIN of Ed Joyce. Also, I find your comment actually slightly offensive and patronising. You have also used blackmail here, suggesting that anyone who takes legal action against wikipedia will be banned. The huge flaws and shortcoings are now being clearly shown. Though there may not be a source on the internet which can be cited in this article, you can easily check the validity of this article by contacting Middlesex CC Youth Cricket. Furthermore, his name has been shouted around the Emirates Stadium despite him not playing football on any kind of proffessional level. Arsenal fans do not just shout his name out like they do for any old sports kid; this is one of the rising young stars of North London. Additionally, a huge number of people have contacted me saying that they would support a complaint and/or legal actoin against wikipedia. Also, they have agreed to write on the discussion page exactly how they feel. We demand an apology from wikipedia and most certainly for this article to remain and also for administrators to refrain from blackmail. Your recent comment on my page doesn't make sense to me. How is removing vandalism not constructive? I'm not really sure why you reverted my edit. 24.68.237.17 18:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The notice should not have gone to you; VandalProof, the program I use to revert vandalism, will occaisionally post to the wrong account. I revert the edit to your page; sorry for the software error. I should have caught it when I posted it. --Storm Rider 18:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem, I actually guessed that something like this happened, and that I got a comment for someone else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.68.237.17 (talk) 19:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Species integration nominated for deletion

As someone who has commented on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Most ancient common ancestor, you are invited to comment on another article by the same author which I just nominated for deletion. The same author coined a new article Species integration which similar theme with two completely irrelevant references, after the 'most ancient common ancestor' article was deleted. I removed these two irrelevant references, and commented on these on the Talk:Species integration page.

The new nomination/discussion page is at: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Species integration.

Thanks. Fred Hsu 01:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The Latter Day Church of Jesus Christ

Since you removed The Latter Day Church of Jesus Christ from Category:Latter Day Saint denominations, will you also be removing it's description from Latter Day Saint movement? -- 159.182.1.4 18:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

This group is currently impossible to get any sources for its reality or the size of its membership. When I read the website I almost get the impression that it is a farce...The Book of Mormon as if Dr. Seuss had written it? That type of drivel leads me to think it is simply a fellow having a go with an overactive imagination.

Given the lack of sources for the group, it would be hard to call it a denomination. If sources can not be identified I would support deleting the article and thus the question of removing it from Latter Day Saint movement is moot for right now. --Storm Rider 18:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that The Latter Day Church of Jesus Christ should be deleted (I did add the prod today) but was unsure if it should be removed from Latter Day Saint movement now or wait, but I'm fine with waiting on that. I'm really curious to see if the prod will be removed. Since IP editors can't properly initiate a AfD, if the prod is removed but proper sources are not provided, would you be willing to initiate the AfD? -- 159.182.1.4 19:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I was wondering why I could not find the listing. I think I will probably list it formally this evening. --Storm Rider 20:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

See Talk:The Latter Day Church of Jesus Christ for my explanation and a question re Category:Latter Day Saint denominations. Briefly stated, I had not included the source used in my creation of the two articles primarily because the source is a "forthcoming" manuscript and I was unsure whether to wait for publication or not in referencing it, but it is a revised edition of a reliable source that the information came from. The group not a "farce", as you have suggested, regardless of your personal views of their beliefs. (Incidentally, some of your comments on 159.182.1.4's page sound eerily like early criticisms of the Book of Mormon and J. Smith's church! What goes around comes around, I guess.) :) –SESmith 22:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, as long as you are worried about LDS groups that have no references, there are others articles that don't even refer to primary sources: see eg, Pentecostal Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Pure Church of Christ, Righteous Branch of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. There are probably others. In light of this, I'm not sure why the rush to delete The Latter Day Church of Jesus Christ was so swift. I'm not trying to justify the article's existence through a WP:WAX argument, I'm just explaining why I thought I was safe waiting a bit for the publication of the source. I guess that was not a safe decision! :) –SESmith 22:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I remeber working with another editor in the past on this topic and we could not get any references at that time. The farce part of my comments stem directly from a quote off of their website...Dr. Seuss' translation of the Book of Mormon. IMO that is less than professsional and borders on the absurd; as if it is a joke. Other parts of their website seem real, but nothing I saw provides any evidence of membership outside of Mr. Gil. --Storm Rider 22:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Incidently, this article had a previous life here on Misplaced Pages and was deleted also. This has been around longer than July 2007, but was previously purged from Misplaced Pages. I don't really have a fire burning for this specific article, but I have been paying attention to AfDs of late and I would guess most of these articles could be deleted if they were nominated.

This guy makes me uncomfortable because I seriously can not tell if he is serious or if it really is just a bad joke. The website is not helpful in providing a real position for me and creates more questions than answers. A website is too easy to create for me to think there is any notability or validity to the site. Does that make sense? --Storm Rider 22:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I understand what you mean. He's been interviewed by the author of the book I cited, and he at least is convinced he and the group are "for real".

I don't think the Dr. Seuss thing is unique to their group and to me it looks like it was put there merely as a source of amusement for their members. It (or similar offerings) has been available on the internet for awhile now; see HERE and HERE, for example. –SESmith 23:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Your removal re Criticism of Mormonism

The problem with your request for a reference and stating the change as an opinion, is that I consulted CS Lewis' Mere Christianity, and the quote is an abstraction from a much longer discussion where Lewis does not suggest anything like the original writer of the article intended. Lewis used the term "god" in a the sense of becoming "like Christ", not at all like the writer of this section suggests. It would require an extensive verbatim quote from Lewis of 3-5 paragraphs to make the point. The other option I considered was to remove the Lewis reference entirely from this article because of the problem here. So it is not my opinion, and the problem requires fixing. Do you have a better idea? Leaving this as it is won't do. With respect, Fremte 17:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Vistas High School

The article has been renamed correctly as Vistas High School Program. There is a discussion on a possible merge to its parent article at Klein ISD Merge. Your input is welcome. – Dreadstar † 22:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Shrem Class

Hello In reference to your question posted on August 7th on the Sephardic Pizmonim Project, Gabriel Shrem taught a Sephardic Hazzanut class at the Yeshiva University Cantorial Institute. They also call it Bels Academy. Shrem passed away 21 years ago, but the class is still active with a new instructor. I'd be happy to answer further questions.David Betesh

LDS Church article

Hi, Storm. I did think the original sentence was a little overdone, with modest overtones of Catholic/Protestant images of Christ as well as the LDS viewpoint. If your objective is to define the Church's view of Christ and his central importance, we could use a quote or paraphrase one. The material below is from lds.org/church library or we could get something from the LDS encyclopedia. As it was, I only modified the sentence a little, which you are of course free to revert. Best. WBardwin 04:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Jesus Christ is the Only Begotten Son of God the Father in the flesh. He was the Creator, He is our Savior, and He will be our Judge. Under the direction of our Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ created the earth. Through His suffering in the Garden of Gethsemane and by giving His life on the cross—that is, by performing the Atonement—Jesus Christ saves us from our sins as we follow Him. Through His Resurrection, Jesus Christ saves us from physical death. Because He overcame death, we will all be given the gift of resurrection. (lds.org/church library)

Balkanization of Lists

I have to strongly agree with your view on List of British Chinese people. I think the list of people method has gotten out of control. Lists of people were never meant to house all people of a nationality. And that's what the American and British lists want to do. Does List of Germans have anywhere close to all notable Germans? Please. Lists are meant to put THE MOST representative people of the nationality and a given occupation. Not everybody. Exact same issue at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of British Asian people. Bulldog123 18:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

hello

Hi Storm Rider,

Yes, all is well, just took an extended break punctuated by minor edits here and there. I'm going to try to pick things up a little bit now, but we'll see how it goes. Good to see you're still around and active. :-)

Wesley 04:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Storm Rider! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Daniel 10:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Bigamists

Could you help out at Category:American bigamists? A user is trying to change the definition away from that of criminality (being convicted of bigamy) to one of simply having more than one spouse at once. This, of course, will expand the category to include dozens of articles about 19th century Mormon polygamists, and I thought the idea was that we didn't categorize people according to marital status. The people included in this category, I thought, were there because of an actual conviction for bigamy. Thanks. Rich Uncle Skeleton 07:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I gave up. Please see my nomination HERE. Rich Uncle Skeleton 09:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Thinning of Category:Christianity

Trinity is no longer in the category, nor I believe any other entries in Category:Conceptions of God. Consider when I started this project over a year ago there were nearly a thousand articles listed directly under Category:Christianity. I cannot locate every questionable entry, research its placement, and make the edit at once, as the labyrinth of Christianity's subcategories are often themselves severely neglected.-choster 01:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Just a niggling point about VP

Hi,

The edit summary for your last edit to the History of Christianity article says that you reverted my last edit using VP but it appears that, in fact, you were reverting back to my last edit and reverting the change from "scholars" to "Christians" made by User:68.175.20.30.

I'm OK with your revert but I'm concerned about the erroneous edit summary. It would appear the VP (VandalProof?) made an error in creating the automatically generated edit summary. Do you agree? What would have caused VandalProof to mess up in this way and is it worth reporting to the author?

--Richard 06:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Submitted WP:RfC on John Foxe

For more info, see Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/John Foxe.

One other person needs to certify the RfC within 48 hours or it will be deleted. More information 74s181 06:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Care to comment? LDS issue

Care to comment at Talk:The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ#Proposed_compromises? I've been referred to you multiple times as someone who is quite knowledgeable in the Latter Day Saint articles area. Thanks. Rich Uncle Skeleton 23:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Barnstar

Wow, I certainly didn't expect that. I've really been wondering if I've been doing the right thing being so persistent on the First Vision article. I've had several interesting things happen over the last week or so that made me believe I should continue, and this is one more. Thanks! 74s181 04:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Anon 219.90.203.129

I am confused. I see that you reverted vandalism / joke edit by User talk:219.90.203.129, and then left him a "welcome" message on his talk page. I have avoided doing something like that because I think it gives a mixed message. Did you do that on purpose? -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 17:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I am using VP (VandalProof) and it has not been the best of experiences. Currently, it is running but with a few bugs. This was an error on my part; I clicked a button that I thought was going to give me the opportunity to choose an appropriate warning; instead it left something else and immedately saved it. Maybe I should have reverted my own edit and then replaced it with a more appropriate warning manually, but I just left it. Sorry Bill. --Storm Rider 18:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Spelling

You may be right, but I think it was precisely about this article that the question arose earlier. The Misplaced Pages rule is, if I remember right, that the style of spelling that was used in the first version of the article (if that can be determined) or that was used in the first major change showing a choice of style should be followed. The person who earlier wanted to US-ize the spelling was at first counting as US style every instance of the word "practice" and every verb that ended in -ize. When he realized that outside the US the noun "practice" is always spelled in that way and that only the verb is written "practise", and that "-ize" (not only "-ise") is an accepted verb ending outside of the USA, he changed his mind. Note that I undid your US-ization of two words in the article saying only that "perhaps" it was unnecessary to change. Would you care to examine the earliest versions of the article to see which style should be adopted according to Misplaced Pages rules? (You will have noticed that, though I do not use US spelling, I prefer the Greek-derived "-ize" to the French-derived "-ise".) Lima 18:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't think it is that big of an issue. I believe your understanding of the Manual of Style is similar to my own; however, I still believe the intent is that articles either take one style or the other and not both. I support whatever makes the goup content and my efforts were only directed to improve the article. Cheers! --Storm Rider 20:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

VP edit summaries broken

Not sure if it's a user setting or an error in the software, but I wanted to point out that your edit summaries from your most recent VP edits have all been wrong. They've been saying that certain users have been reverted, when if you check the page history, that hasn't been the case. -Andrew c  14:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Eagle Scout

Your edit summary on Eagle Scout (Boy Scouts of America) isEagle Scout (Boy Scouts of America) odd. It shows "(Reverted edits by Rlevse (talk) to last revision (159358927) by using VP)", but the revert was of edits by 151.188.16.21 to the version by Rlevse. Possibly an artifact of VP, but you might want to keep an eye on it. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 14:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Goofed

Either you or your VP program goofed, the summary says you reverted my edits, see , but you really reverted an anon IP edit back to my last version. I am not a vandal, I am an admin.Rlevse 15:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, the VP program seems to be having a rather high number of bugs lately; I apologize for error. I am new to VandalProof, but I am beginning to think that it is more trouble than it is worth; however, it seems to be able to faciliate a lot of actions if the bugs were only corrected. Again, sorry for the error. --Storm Rider 15:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

It happens. I gave up VP some time back and switched to WP:Twinkle. It has worked without a hitch from day one.

Technology is not doing its job unless it dashes someone's hopes and dreams on a daily basis. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 15:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I understand. VP is so buggy I gave up on it. Now I use popups and my admin rollback button.Rlevse 15:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Satanic

Ugh. I'm sorry, but I don't think I can emotionally distance myself from that article sufficiently to comment on it in a useful way. I've been dealing with this garbage too much in real life lately and it's starting to get to me, so in this case it'd probably be better if I didn't get involved. But I appreciate your seeking me out. --Masamage ♫ 06:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I've been watching the article since it was created, along with the new category "Mormonism and Violence". Can't do much until next week when I'm back in town. I'm surprised that the article doesn't mention Decker's 1993 film The God Makers II, in which Decker attempts to use the Pace memo to tie Satanism with the church and with Joseph Smith. No mention or reference in the article...a bit odd. Bochica 15:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

RLDS

Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is still a big problem. It is nothing more than a POV fork. I think it should be AFD'd. Thoughts? IvoShandor 22:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for fighting vandalism ...

... but please don't break ClueBot's redirect as you have done here. Thanks. -- Cobi 15:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

On my edit to gay, transgender etc. characters in video games

My edit wasn't even close to vandalism. All I did was change a lie into a fact, and it was reverted within 30 seconds. Please try to be a little less trigger-happy in the future

Proof of innocence: http://www.schoolkids-sg.com/weblog/postimages/20060906-2.jpg - directly from the SMB2 manual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.209.226.65 (talk) 04:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Your edit was interpreted to be an attempt to vulgarize a known term. Further, there was not need for the change. I would encourage you not to be so sensitive and to be more careful in your edits. Just because some one corrects your edits should not be taken as a personal affront. Cheers, --Storm Rider 04:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I would not use that link to support your proclaimed position of evidence. You may need to review what a reliable source is. --Storm Rider 04:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edit to Joseph Smith, Jr.

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Joseph Smith, Jr.. Please be careful when editing pages and do not remove content from Misplaced Pages without a good reason, which should be specified in the edit summary. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. —Remember the dot 03:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Why on earth would you welcome an editor that has been here for a considerably longer period than you? It is one of the shortfalls of using templates blindly. Your edit to Joseph Smith did nothing to improve the article so I don't see why you would issue a warning for "deleting information". You might want to review the purpose of using warning templates and use better judgement in when to apply them. You did no harm, but it is just an annoying approach to editing. --Storm Rider 06:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

(replying to message on my talk page) - You're right, I probably should have written a more personalized message. You do have to understand that I was annoyed that you would revert my edit with the completely unrelated explanation "spelling". For one thing, my edit added a link to Joseph Smith (disambiguation), which is necessary for proper navigation through pages. —Remember the dot 18:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Book of Mormon GA on hold for seven days

Your help is needed during this period to resolve final issues before GA status. Wrad 23:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

My edit of User:TheJosh/Chicken

I think it was proper to revert it, but I didn't do anything wrong - the point of that page is to vandalize it.--69.138.69.107 23:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)