Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Redwolf24 (talk | contribs) at 00:59, 27 September 2005 (accept). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Hi Nereocystis, and welcome to Misplaced Pages.

Thankyou for finding the time to sign up and contribute to our little project. If you're in doubt about anything, you might want to check out some of these pages:

• Welcome, newcomers - a general introduction, and a good starting point
• The help centre and FAQs
• The Manual of Style - a guide to the community's writing conventions

It's also a good idea to sign the new user log and add a little about yourself.

When contributing to a talk page, you can sign your name by typing four tildes after your comments, like this: ~~~~. (Just so you know, some people won't pay attention to unsigned comments).

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask me at my talk page, or at the Help desk or Village Pump.

Above all, make sure you be bold when contributing, and have fun!

– T.P.K. 10:07, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Arctostaphylos

Hi Nereo - I think if the two are to be merged, it should be at Arctostaphylos, not at Manzanita. There's plenty of other genera, where the genus contains plants with different common names, where the wikipedia page is at the scientific name, not one of the common names. Thanks for adding the subgenera & section details, that's very useful. - MPF 22:51, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I prefer merging at Arctostaphylos as well. However, whenever I add a new binomial species, someone moves it to a common name, no matter how uncommon the name really is. User:nereocystis

Hdl

I went ahead and deleted this redirect, but only because you asked, and nobody disagreed. If it was up to me, I would have left if, because clearly someone looked up "Hdl", found nothing there, and started to create an article - which is #2 on the list of reasons to keep a redirect. If it get recreated again, I will definitely keep it. Noel (talk) 12:58, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement

I've left a similar message at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Latter_Day_Saint_movement#Votes_resulting_from_comment_on_talk_pages. The comments you left on item you voted on make me think the reccommendation is poorlyl worded. We are referring ONLY to the massive amounts of "lds.org"-related and "helpingmormons.com"-related links that deal very little with the topic on the said page. For example, there are scores of links at Mormon and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saint that are duplicative pointing people to LDS.org, BYU or some anti-site - most are found on both pages. The "official" church links should be at the Church page, not at Mormon, since it is about Mormon and which sects claim to be "Mormons." See what we're saying? If there is specific Book of Abraham links, of course they should be at that page, but www.BYU.com; lds.org or www.ihatemormons.com should not be on those pages. What you are thinking is the following recommendation about a link page - that ha opposing votes and will likely fail (thank goodness!). You may want to move your vote down to that section. -Visorstuff 21:07, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Polygamy

Hi, just wondering if you're still planning on making edits to that article soon? Dan100 17:49, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Soon. I hope very soon. Weekends have been busy for me lately. I hope to do 1 or 2 a day for a while. I admit that I'm a bit gunshy, and sort of expect reversions in a few days. Nereocystis 21:13, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't think you'll be reverted. Everything seems quiet at the moment! Dan100 18:59, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Prophecies of Joseph Smith

Your comments on the page today could be answered by reading the recent edits over the last few days. It was the concensus that attempting an article entitled "Joseph Smith as a prophet" was not appropriate for a Wiki article. It's title only invited POV edits. The title was changed to the current title, "Prophecies of Joseph Smith". You will read that a decision has not be finalized on whether it should just be list of his prophecies and leave it up to the reader to decide validity or to insert pro and con commentary. I personally lean to just state the facts and leave the commentary and decision making to the reader, but I have not made a final decision. The article as it now stands if still very much in a "drafting" situation. Your input is sought, but I am not sure your most recent edits were the result of having read all the recent edits and decisions or simply not being involved in the recent decisions. It's not final so feel free to come back and discuss your concerns. Storm Rider 8 July 2005 21:24 (UTC)

Anti-Mormon discussion

I left you a response on my talk page to your post. Thank-you for being a part of the WP:LDS. It is refreshing to have a fourth school of thought on Mormon history represented and does help in keeping us more neutral. Keep up the good work - your edits are much needed.

Also, realize that most of us don't consider disagreement anti-Mormon, we consider public attacks anti-mormon. To me a big difference. People who are not Jewish are not Anti-Semetic. People who publicly say Jews are going to hell are. People who are not Mormon and who disagree are not anti-mormon, but those who wave garments at temple square or say all Mormons are doomed to hell are. Thanks. -Visorstuff 22:09, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Am I heading in the right direction on Anti-Mormonism/Rewrite?

RFC

"Please note: If you did not try and fail to resolve the dispute, but agree with the summary's presentation of events, please sign in the next section. Please notify the user, via his talk page, that a conduct dispute has been raised." This is the reason that I haven't signed the "Users certifying the basis for this dispute" section. Have you put a message on the talk pages of people who are/were involved with this to get their endorsement? Kewp 06:36, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Polygamy

Could you clean up your last edit on Talk:Polygamy? Somehow, it looks like the page got duplicated or something, and I don't want to accidentally delete your post in cleaning it up. Thanks, dude! - Dunkelza 18:39 August 31, 2005 (EDT)

Your take on the polygamy dispute

Hello.

I've agreed to advocate for Researcher99 regarding the polygamy dispute. I've read through the large amount of discussion on the relevant talk pages and RFC. Researcher99 insists that the dispute resolution must return to the state it was in before Uriah923 began mediating in order to comply with Misplaced Pages policy (although the particular policy of maintaining the status quo on articles while in dispute is only a guideline, and this far into the dispute it may no longer make sense to revert the article back to April). I am interested in hearing your opinion of the dispute and of Researcher99's resolution proposal in order to help reach a compromise on the approach to resolution. I also proposed getting at least the two of you together in an IRC chat to discuss each other's grievances in the presence of an advocate, but Researcher99 did not directly answer the question of whether he is willing to try that. Would you agree to a chat? Do you believe that it would be worthwhile?

Thanks.

Metasquares 17:19, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

hello

I hope it didn't sound mean when I said "did you make a mistake?" about the Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Religion on the talk:polygamy page, I just didn't know enough about it to add it myself. Anyways, I guess my larger problem is that I am very interested in contributing to this article, but as I expressed on the talk page it's hard to get involved because this issue has been going on for so long. I'm just not sure what is appropriate, especially now that there is a mediation type thing going on between you and Researcher99. Anyways, just wanted to clarify my position. Best, Kewp 14:05, 5 September 2005 (UTC)Kewp

Well apparently I talk to myself since apparently we are the same person, according to Researcher99 well, I'm at a loss for words.Kewp 20:57, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

About Polygamy dispute

I'm writing here for keeping Talk:Polygamy in some order. As Researcher is back from his Wikibreak, I'll ask him about the mediation and his opinion. --Neigel von Teighen 23:31, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

I've began a request for mediation between Researcher and you. You can see it in Misplaced Pages:Requests for Mediation and should answer it with your opinion about doing the mediation no matter if you want or not to do it. --Neigel von Teighen 23:19, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Researcher, talk pages, mediation, etc.

Hi! I saw your message for me.

I also want to get this into mediation to resolve this dispute. We must do it quickly or I actually don't know what to do for doing this in a civil manner. It's really funny that we cannot do our mediation only because there's no mediator (I hope you saw the message MacGyverMagic sent me on that matter) though Researcher and you do want to do it! It's curious how sometimes mediators "vandalize" these processes.

And on vandalism, how could Researcher say that a mediation would be vandalism? He's now who wants it. --Neigel von Teighen 22:06, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Mediation accepted

Hello, I have assigned User:Andrevan to the mediation filed. I am waiting for his reply, but please see http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation#.5B.5BUser:Researcher99.5D.5D_in_dispute_with_.5B.5BUser:Nereocystis.5D.5D_and_others. Thanks, Redwolf24 (talk) 00:59, 27 September 2005 (UTC)