User talk:Val42/Archive1

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia.

You can help improve the articles listed below! This list updates frequently, so check back here for more tasks to try. (See Wikipedia:Maintenance or the Task Center for further information.)

Help counter systemic bias by creating new articles on important women.

Help improve popular pages, especially those of low quality.

You might find these links helpful in creating new pages or helping with the above tasks: How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Naming conventions, Manual of Style. You should read our policies at some point too.

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. If you made any edits before you got an account, you might be interested in assigning those to your username. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

• If you made any edits before you got an account, you might be interested in assigning those to your username.

• You can sign your name using three tildes, like this: ~~~. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too.

• If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the votes for deletion page. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted.

Again, welcome! - UtherSRG 04:54, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I have made some open-suggestions on Talk:Salt Lake City, Utah. If you get a free moment please review them and any added comments are greatly appreciated. Have a nice day. Apollomelos 23:40, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm impressed. Your edits sound not only like well-stated Mormonism, but like ultimate truth. I guess Mormonism intends when well-stated to be ultimate truth. Mormonism really is amazing as an inspired revelation sometimes in spite of its human shortcomings. Particularly in the view of salvation, Mormonism, as you have expressed it here, has a very good way of expressing the inexpressible realities of the eternal purposes in a liberal and generous, but demanding way. Thanks for your contributions. Tom Haws 03:53, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

I'm curious why you reverted. Trodel put your version back. Apparently he liked it as much as I did. More info from the Val? Tom Haws 15:12, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

I just encouraged our recent anon. editor to take his multiple concerns to the talk page. I copied his note there to start the discussion. FYI, that introductory paragraph is the result of many edits, discussions and compromises by the LDS user's group, now found in the archives of the article. I would encourage you to revert your last change and join in on the discussion page. Detailing why you felt it was important to follow the anon. editor's opinions would be a good start. Thanks. WBardwin 02:59, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks -- this lets us gather some opinions from the anon and other users. Look forward to working with you. WBardwin 03:06, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Val, on the recent edits to the article, do you see any reson not to simply quote the three witnesses statement? I also think the Harris quote later in his life should be quoted. To state that the three saw them in a vision is an interpretation of their statement and not what they said. I am not aware that the Church claims it was a vision. Do I believe it was with their human eyes? I guess I don't really care, but I know that many Mormons believe that they saw them with their acutal eyes and handled them with their hands. If the article does not inlclude the quotes now, I will wait and add them later. You have a more reason approach at the moment and would hope you would do if you think it is appropriate. Storm Rider 19:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed your information but would like to explain myself. I have no trouble believing it is true that there was some "borrowing" (I don't know if it was plagiarizing, since I've never looked into the issue), but I'd like to see a source for it, such as the usenet posts you mentioned. The bit about Worf being brought on to boost ratings is a good example of something else I agree with but would have removed had it been added without a specific source. Thanks! Jibbajabba 06:39, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You have received this message because you have edited a Salt Lake City media article in the past. We have recently had an edit war regarding the wording and inclusion of a paragraph on the KTVX article. In hopes of resolving this I have put together an informal survey. If you are interested, please stop by Talk:KTVX and add a vote. Thanks, A 09:15, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commercial links — or links to your own private websites — to Wikipedia. Specifically I'm referring to the addition of links to BoardGameGeek.com to every board game article. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. They will be removed. If you should be so inclined, you might help. WAvegetarian ^(talk) (email) ^(contribs) 06:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am not associated with Board Game Geek other than a user who appreciates the resource. I figured that other users would also appreciate the reviews. That is apparently not the purpose of Wikipedia any more, according to you. Val42 15:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you are referring to commercial interests being put above others, this never was the purpose. The reviews are inherently POV. There is a prominent, centrally placed ad on every page you linked to. The actual info on the games duplicates content that is/should be in the main article. If this isn't WP:SPAM, then it's commercial fancruft. In any event, it is innapropriate to place these links on every board game article. The link from BoardGameGeek is enough for someone trying to find them. We are not a directory, however, and shouldn't be making edits and additions with the purpose of driving more traffic to their site. WAvegetarian ^(talk) (email) ^(contribs) 15:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Then, according to your rules, you need to remove the Board Game Geek entries from all of the board game entries. (Links to BGG existed on a large percentage of the articles before I came along.) And I am personally looking for you to personally trim down the Scrabble list to less than half of its current size. We should take this to some board game page so that we're not the only ones discussing this important issue. I'll let you pick which board game page. Val42 16:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that I jumped to conclusions and called you a vandal. Please see the discussion, and an explanation of my reasoning at Wikipedia talk:Counter Vandalism Unit#HELP!. While I still do not agree with the style of the links, i.e. including the internal link, I now understand their addition to the articles. I had issues IRL which kept me from actually removing any links immediately. I will help to put back the ones that were removed as a result of my post if the consensus seems to go that way, which it currently is. WAvegetarian ^(talk) (email) ^(contribs) 18:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Early life of Joseph Smith, Jr. will be featured on the Main Page on the 23rd. Vandalism will probably be frequent that day. Could you help in monitoring the page? The 23rd starts at 7 pm ET on Dec 22nd, since wikipedia goes by UTC. Thx in advance. Trödel•talk 01:56, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Val. Can you tell me what it does when someone puts a person's name next to their category entry (like you've been doing)? I've been wondering this and trying to find the answer, but have not. It doesn't appear to do anything as it already is alphabetized in the category listing. --Jason Gastrich 01:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Usually, articles are alphabetized by their category names. This works well except for names. It is traditional in most countries to alphabetize by the family name, which in western cultures is the last name. Doing what I did tells Wikipedia to alphabetize in the order that is specified after the pipe ('|') symbol, forcing it to alphabetize by family name. I realize that this doesn't do much for Billy Barty right now, but it will if/when there are others in the B list in the same category. Val42 01:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see now! Thanks for clearing that up. Do you happen to know if Wiki says somewhere that it prefers to alphabetize by last name instead of first name? On my web sites, I've done it both ways; different ways for different reasons. --Jason Gastrich 01:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if there is a Wikipedia policy on it. But it seems to be done without objections, so it is the defacto policy. Val42 02:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I'm just concerned that it will defeat the purpose if everyone doesn't try and do it one way or the other. Having 1/2 the people categorized by first name and 1/2 of them by last name, in the same category, will be confusing. I bet there is an official word somewhere . . . --Jason Gastrich 02:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! As you have contributed to LDS/Mormon articles in the past, this is a friendly heads-up that Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_temples_of_The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints is currently being discussed. Any comments you have regarding the issue would be appreciated. Thanks! —akghetto ^talk 11:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

here, you refer to the prior edit as "vandalism." I don't see a case for calling it. With the ArbCom elections presently happening, it seems to me that everyone is taking up the task of burning the vandals out of the community. Do you really feel that was vandalism? Avriette 09:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I noticed you were on the list of members in the LDS WikiProject, and I was wondering if you were still interested in helping out there. You see, over the past few months, it appears that it has slowly drifted into inactivity. But you CAN help. Please consider doing both of the following:

1. Take ONE thing form the To-Do list and do it. Once you're done with it, remove it from the list, and from the<>{{Template:LDSprojectbox}}<>, so we know its done. Keep the page on your watchlist. We have a backlog going for more than half a year. Please help to work on it, and remove it.
2. Vote on the LDSCOTF, and work on it!
3. Tell your friends (esp. LDS friends, & esp. Wikipedian friends) about this WikiProject, and enocourage them to join (and be active).

Remember: your involvement in this WikiProject is just that - involvement! Please help us out.

(Note: I'm sending this out to everyone who's name was on the membership list, so I will NOT be watching this page for a response. If you want to contact me, do it on MY talk page, please.)

Thanks for all that you do -Trevdna 15:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, just saying thanks for fixing my syntax at Talk:Mormonism(I forgot that crucial colon[:]). The Scurvy Eye 04:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I wanted to follow the link, so the best way was to fix it. Val42 04:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see this proposal? Scouting Barnstarn --evrik 20:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've used this term a few times, and haven't responded anywhere where I've asked what it means / where it comes from. Wikipedia is the only place I've ever heard the term "prarie saint". --Nerd42 15:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a term that was in use in the LDS articles before I started editing Wikipedia. Some of the academician among the LDS editors have seen this distinction used in academic articles, so they didn't originate the term either. When I rewrote the Latter Day Saint movement article, I just rearranged the information that was already there. Here is the fifth paragraph of the "Brief History" section of Latter Day Saint movement:

Following Smith's murder by a mob in Carthage, Illinois, these and other prominent members of the church claimed to be Smith's legitimate successor resulting in a Succession Crisis. This crisis resulted in several permanent schisms, the body of the church breaking in to several denominations. The two main branches of the movement are sometimes called the "Prairie Saints" (those that remained in the region) and the "Rocky Mountain Saints" (those who followed Brigham Young to what would become Utah).

I hope that this answers your question. Val42 03:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your outline that you proposed, but I would probably not delve deeply into beliefs and differences. The differences between some of the groups is very different. For example, CoC have a very mainstream flavor where as LDS group's rejection of the Trinity causes major problems for the mainstream. Maybe just refer them to specific articles would work rather than attempting to explain all the differences in this article. Storm Rider 09:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Val,

User:Enormousdude has taken up editing Mormon articles. His edits tend to consist of duplicating information from the controversy sections and then pasting them into other sections. I have pretty much reached my limit on reverting him. Any help you could give would be appreciated, particular with the Book of Mormon article. Thanks. --Hetar 06:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Joseph Smith, Jr., and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

re: If approved, this would set a bad precedent for any faith-based article directly, and any advocacy-based article (such as abortion) indirectly. Imagine if you will, if the proposal were written thusly: "Should pro-abortion editors be banned from editing abortion-related articles or should there be a limit on how many pro-abortion advocates can edit a single abortion-related page?" Perhaps the last three points on NPOV on faith-based articles should be split in to a separate RFM -- your note on Mediation page.

I've been "away" from Wiki on family business -- but have to some extent kept my eye on this situation. So I guess I'm an interested party. I think the proposal to limit editors on articles based on their affiliation/knowledge is simply ludicrous and smacks of bias, censorship and elitism. I think your example is a good one, but, really, if you plug in any other name -- Catholics can't edit Catholic articles, Jews can't edit Jewish articles, historians can't edit history articles??? -- it all comes out the same. Very anti-Wiki, in my perspective, and certainly it would limit the usefulness of any encyclopedia/article. So, if people outside the mediation group can express an opinion, I would be happy to contribute. Please let me know. Best wishes. WBardwin 03:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support. I suggest that you watch the RFM page and see how the mediation goes on these thre NPOV points, and the last one (the major one) in particular. Then you should jump in where appropriate. Val42 03:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Back on table for featured article, and getting same objects from same orthodox individuals, whom I believe don't ever want the article to see the front page of wikipedia. please jump in, help with the first two pararaphs if time affords, and enter a vote, maybe this time.

VChapman (15APR06) Mesa

When using template tags on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use {{subst:test}} instead of {{test}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template.

Thanks. :)

Hbackman 00:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been reading this Russian's talk page and he says that in his religion, a moral compass is like a device called the Liahona. I saw that you edited this article, so I thought I would ask. Is the Russian right? Here's a link to his talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kaspersky_Trust

It's at the very bottom. Playmate 03:25, April 29, 2006 (UTC)

I read the discussion in the section that you've indicated. I don't understand the Russian, but he does have pretty good English. I would interpret his usage of the term(s) as more of a difference of presentation (way of saying what we mean) than him being incorrect.

I would have defined "moral compass" (for most of the world) as "the internal indicator that points to keeping within the boundaries of one’s morality". We (LDS) would also use a similar term, "The Light of Christ" which would mean "internal promptings by the Holy Ghost to do Right (absolute moral correctness)." (For most people, these will be very much the same thing, but in this day of "moral relativity" (in the United States and Europe), "one's morality" doesn't necessarily correspond to "Right".) In the Liahona article, the metaphor used by Alma to his son Helaman is that "it is as easy to give heed to the word of Christ ... to eternal bliss, as it was for our fathers to give heed to this compass ... to the promised land." In modern LDS usage, "Liahona" is used as a metaphor to follow both the "words of Christ" and the "Light of Christ".

I hope that this helps. I realize that this was a longer answer than you wanted, but I wanted to be as concise as possible while still being as correct as possible. Val42 16:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When using template tags on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use {{subst:test}} instead of {{test}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template.

— Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 02:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya - you wanted "designer" adding to Template:Infobox Game - 'tis done. Percy Snoodle 18:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Val42, thanks for your help on the Anti-Mormonism page! Hopefully we can work together to make it a great source of accurate, NPOV information! Please let me know if there are any sections you want to discuss or talk about, especially if it seems like the stuff I'm putting in (or taking out!) doesn't sit well with you. Thanks again! --Dlugar 23:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have made the edits that I think are appropriate. I like that you shortened some of the sections; I thought they were too long when I was putting them in, but I didn't know how to shorten them at the time. I do think that it is important to list the other person who stood (and died) with the Mormons at Haun's Mill, that's why I added it back in. I'm sure that we'll go back and forth some while this article is being worked on, but I'm trying to work toward a NPOV article too. And I think that the give-and-take has worked well so far. I haven't like the previous revisions that have left out the historical aspects of the term, because it hasn't always been used for as benign activities as happens now days. I hope that you understand. Val42 23:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edits! I know that with religious and political topics, behavior on both sides isn't as "benign" as we'd like--that's why I hoped to get a dialogue going with other users editing the article. I find it's much easier to be civil when there's real conversation going on (as opposed to just edit wars). Re: Haun's Mill, I didn't think the one other person was important enough to include in a relatively tangential article (although certainly it belongs in the main article), but if you feel it's important enough to include, it's not a big deal to me at all. :) Give-and-take is what it's all about! --Dlugar 00:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, now, aren't we in a pickle. I had stopped responding to 213's edits and all was quiet for a day or two. Then you stepped in and holy hannah if it did just blow up. LOL. I really don't know how to respond to the editor. I do find it difficult to follow their logic because of the language barrier. It would appear she/he is not really against Mormonism, but rather all religion. If you have a suggestion on how to proceed I would be happy to hear it. My first reaction is to just let it go and forget about it. Storm Rider ^(talk) 18:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm behind a couple of days in checking on the pages that I watch. To make sure that I got the entire thing, I went to the most recent version of the discussion and read it all in a few hours. It was difficult to follow because of the language barrier, but it seemed that the anonymous editor was repeatedly going over the same ground. It was either a severe misunderstanding that wouldn't go away, no matter how well treated or it was a troll. Either way, I judged that it would be best to confront it once, hard, then leave it alone. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa! seems to have also been bold and archived the discussion. There has been no follow-ups in the archive or on the talk page, so it looks like it is over either way. Val42 03:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You did great. Don't misunderstand my post. I had tried really hard to understand the editor's position, but it was beyond me. I had to laugh when she/he answered you. There was just so much going on with the edit that I really did not know how best answer. Hopefully it is over and if she comes back, maybe we can take it one step at a time rather than address the whole thing at once.

Thanks for the complement. It does seem to be over. I don't see where Sophie replied to me. I you're refering to the part that starts with, "And some advice to Sophie which comes from Sophie," that was me, pulling portions from Sophie's own writings as advice for Sophie. Whatever the impetus, Sophie stopped writing. Good for Sophie, because of the reasons I said before. Val42 05:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot to knock on wood - Sophie's back. Maybe someone should contact the admins that dealt with him/her before when she/he was known as XAL and User:213.237.21.6. --FyzixFighter 17:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to bring you up to date on a little project I'm undertaking. See the discsussion at Trodel's page: User_talk:Trödel/Archive_4#The_Project_and_template, and my own talk page.

I've yet created what will undoubtedly be another controversial, but much needed navigation template - let me know what you think: {{LDSproject}} -Visorstuff 00:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Val42, would you mind commenting on my proposal at Talk:Mormonism? Thx! --AuntieMormom 15:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As opposed to a home garden, a truck garden is a plot or farm where vegetables are grown for market or for distribution to those outside the gardener's immediate household. Too obscure for the Relief Society article? WBardwin 04:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had no idea, which is why I made the change. I think that it is too obscure to not have a link explaining what it is. Val42 05:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

perhaps we could link it to existing (?) articles on urban community gardens or the truck farms popular with the organic movement. The RS gardens were much the same idea in those early years. WBardwin 05:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy. You recently editted Space elevator, citing "Reverted edit. "Carbon nanotubes" are a different structure than "buckminster fullerenes"." This is actually not true as both buckyballs and nanotubes are both types of fullerenes. I took out the "buckminster", though as that's not part of the name of the family of molecules. siafu 04:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was half right then. When I read it, I thought something was wrong with it. I see that you fixed it. But I have one more change. I'll make it and see what you think. Val42 04:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We need coders for the WikiProject Disambigation fixer. We need to make a program to make faster and easier the fixing of links. We will be happy if you could check the project. You can Help! --Neo139 09:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Val42, I work with the local newspaper, the Ogden Standard-Examiner. I am writing a story about local Wikipedia contributors and I would like to talk to you. Would you please contact me and possibly be willing to do an interview? E-mail is [email protected], and you can give me your phone or personal e-mail or whatever. Thanks a lot! Muletrain 18:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

mases from noun maser

masses plural of mass Arnero 12:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I just thought that I'd found a spelling mistake. Thanks for the correction. Val42 05:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding [1] if the artist had 11 albums the artist likely met WP:MUSIC. Who was the artist? JoshuaZ 07:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The artist is Robert Lund. He works for Citadel Broadcasting and has released eleven albums of parodies. His albums were available in national music chain stores, but only in the Salt Lake City, Utah radio market (as far as I know). The criteria for notability in WP:MUSIC for where he'd qualify (musicians, ensembles, composers and lyricists) is apparently some sort of national exposure. He hasn't reached this level (yet), so I had no grounds to oppose the Speedy Deletion. However, I did archive the page as it was, just in case there is a future reason to reinstate the information. It happenned with the Neleh Dennis article I create, it was deleted then later created by someone else and is still around. Val42 07:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, good luck getting him included then. He turns up a lot of google hits (the name seems common but doing "Robert Lund" + musician helps narrow it down). I wouldn't be surprised if he meets criterion 1 of WP:MUSIC. JoshuaZ 07:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the encouragement. I tried the Google search that you suggested and got 10,700 hits. In the future, I may look up some of those links and try to demonstrate notability using them. But I'm going to let it lie for a while. Val42 07:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please place new warnings at the bottom of talk pages. This helps reviewing admins to see if a particlar IP has been recently warned Agathoclea 18:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I placed it in the section that seemed appropriate, at the bottom of that section. I'll try to clean up such warning listings in the future so that the newest fit at the bottom. Thanks for taking care of this so quickly. Val42 18:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I haven't yet, and sofar every admin touching WP:AIV has not touched this particular case as the vandalism is not "obvious" without knowing the subject matter. At the moment the best I can do is observe how the subject develops. Agathoclea 19:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admittedly, the person isn't doing what normal vandals do. I've checked some other pages that he (the default English pronoun) has edited and found the same sort of thing. It is almost as if he is some sort of researcher testing Wikipedia for some article he is writing to see how long subtle vandalism is permitted to go on. Val42 19:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded to your note on my talk page. Good luck and let me know when you accept the nomination. -Visorstuff 17:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anything is really changed fundamentally with regard to what an administrator is. Basically, an admin is someone who is given additional control as watchdogs over the Wikipedia. Because the additional admin powers can cause annoying-though-reversible problems if abused, the admin must have demonstrated a certain level of trustworthiness. Mostly what I do as an admin is watch for and quickly revert vandalism, which admins can do very easily with a single click. I also do a lot of page deleting and fixing of botched page moves. Occasionally, I will block an obvious anonymous vandal for 24 hours. I'm only active, basically, in the areas where I have a personal interest. I am very conservative about using my special admin powers, because I think that most problems don't require them, and can be solved through negotiation, mediation, or arbitration (which do not require admin powers, except for the enforcement of arbitration decisions, but arbitrations are rare). My view is that anyone who has been around for a while, has good contributions, has shown they can get along with people, is trustworthy, and agrees with Wikipedia philosophy should be an admin. COGDEN 22:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will echo the advice of Visorstuff and COGDEN. Additionally, having recently become an admin, at first I took on an extra time commitment and monitored recent changes more, added block review to my dail activities, and issued a few blocks. I found that I was spending too much time on it and scaled back a little. Because I agree with Jimbo that it isn't that big a deal, I think that any respected and responsible user can be an admin (and in many case should be) because having more admins allows the work to be spread just like having so many editors. Additionally, I think there is great value in regular editors whos intent is to continue to focus on content creation also be administrators as they can add a sense of balance to the myopia that can sometimes afflict those that do the heavy lifting on vandal fighting - for which I am very grateful BTW. Mostly I find myself able to fix things up that I would normally have to ask others to help with - deleting unused pages, merging histories, editing esoteric templates, etc. I see the blocking power as a preventative measure as opposed to a punishment (but I think that the person receiving the block views it as a punishment) therefore, if the behaviour has stopped then I generally don't block since the desired outcome has been acheived. Good luck in making a decision. --Trödel 19:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS one thing I would be wary of if I didn't know you and was directed to your nomination is the short time that User:TheGreenFaerae has been on Wikipedia. He has less than 150 total edits. You might be better off waiting until someone else with a better history on Wikipedia nominates you. --Trödel 20:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why should it matter how many edits I have? I'm not the one running, and there's no telling how many acutal pre-reg edits I have, you know...TheGreenFaerae 23:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because normally the nominator is a respected user who has significant exprience and is frequently already an admin himself. I'm sorry you're taking offense at this, but that is how it is. --Trödel 05:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen a good many nominations made by users of all sorts of experience, and I have not seen that argument brought up. Cite your sources, sir. Besides, nowhere in admin requirements is it stipulated that it has to be an experienced user making the nomination, opposition sole on those grounds is out of place, and the kind of elitism you are alluding to is against the aims and goals of the Wikipedia project as a whole. It also seems to me that you made this argument up yourself, and as is stated on the RFA guidelines, you must support this statement. Also let me thank you for bringing up a wierd argument like this, right or wrong, as if Val42 is to pass, he should be rpepared to see such wierd arguments, there being no required set of standards. I just disagree that my low edit history should have any bearing whatsoever on his qualifications. TheGreenFaerae 05:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being an administrator is a position of trust within the community. The nominator vouches to the community that the person nominated is deserving of that trust. If the nominator doesn't have enough experience on Wikipedia (and thus has not gained the trust of the community himself, much less gained enough trust to vouch for another), then many voters may rightfully examine the nomination in more detail. Of the current RFAs that are open, none of the nominators has less than 4500 edits - most have many more than that - show me an example of a nominator with less than 150 total edits whose nominee was successfully promoted - I doubt that there is even one successful candidate. --Trödel 05:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC) PS to Val42 - this discussion has nothing to do with your fitness as an admin for which I think you are qualified.[reply]

Show me a case where an RFA was denied because of the nominator's experience. Show proof or shut up, that's all there is to it. For a wikipedian, you dont seem to be able to cite your sources very well.TheGreenFaerae 05:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the discussion. I have been keeping up with it while I've been waiting for someone-else-I-asked-for-feedback to get back to me. It has been enlightening, so far. But I think that beyond this point it will generate more heat than light. I thank you both for your feedback, and TheGreenFaerae, I thank you for the nomination. Val42 05:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean for my last comment to sound hostile. I jsut said it that way because I thought the words had a cool rythym to it that way. TheGreenFaerae 07:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's some messed up coding at the top of the Category:Board games page. Is it an easy fix?--Knulclunk 02:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked out the Category:Board games page and didn't find any formatting issues. What, specifically, do you see as the problem? Val42 18:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was a bunch of coding cyrillic looking gibberish at the top, but I wasn't sure if I could just delete it without messing something up. It seems to have been fixed. Thanks! --Knulclunk 15:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you could check this out and provide your input, it would be appreciated. thank you. TheGreenFaerae 20:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Tr%C3%B6del[reply]

Thank you. Your assistance was appreciated.TheGreenFaerae 04:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		Fine attempt to mediate on the Trodel RfC TheGreenFaerae 03:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS Your handling of this is just the reason why I thought you should have been an admin. You really should think about nominating yourself at some point;)

Because you have been working so hard to try to resolve the dispute, I am requesting that you once again help in resolving the dispute. I am filing a request for Arbitration, as it has become clear that Trodel will not abide by any decision we try to come to in the RfC. You won't be asked to do much, I think, just give your statement, much as you have for the RfC. Your help would be most appreciated. TheGreenFaerae 09:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#.7BFinal_Resolution_for_dispute_between_Tr.C3.B6del_and_TheGreenFaerae.7D

Mormon pioneers is the current collaboration of the month. I would like to add the non-commercial LDS movies, Legacy: A Mormon Journey to the external Links section. I think to upload this movie on http://video.google.com/ would not be a problem because LDS movies like The Restoration (Google Video) are also on http://video.google.com/ .But I can not upload this movie because I do not have it and I´m from Europe and I´m not a mormon. So please, can you upload this movie on http://video.google.com/ and share it with us? Daniel3 17:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, first of all, it is up to the copyright holder to decide to share the movie on google video. Second, I don't have this video, yet. So, I can't help you with this. Val42 16:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you ask the copyright holder to allow sharing the movie on google video? You can buy this movie on Legacy (Multilanguage). I think it would improve the image of mormons if everybody could watch this movie on google video. There is no other way for non-mormons to watch this movie.Daniel3 19:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I know you made this edit about 14 months ago, but I was curious to ask anyway. I notice you changed the place where he lived in 1978 from Miami to Fort Lauderdale, but, from what I remember watching this movie, he originally lived in Miami and then when he returned to 1986 his parents had moved to Fort Lauderdale. I don't really see anything indicating he had lived in Lauderdale the whole time, and just wanted to check as to where you got the information he originally lived there and not in Miami, as many people seem to think when they see this movie? I have nothing against the edit, don't get me wrong, but reading it now just confused me a bit cause it's probably true, still, I do think he originally lived in Miami, and then Fort Lauderdale... either way, let me know. Thanks. -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 20:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll watch the movie soon and get back to you on the movie's page. Val42 02:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I watched it today and took note of where it took place. The city where his original house is located isn't mentioned (that I noticed), but the police that are involved are from Fort Lauderdale. Also, at 1:17 into the movie when he is going back to his new house in the spaceship, Max asks, "Is this Fort Lauderdale?" David responds, "Yes." So I guess that his family remains in the same city but moves to a different house, near the 7th Street Bridge. I'll go to the article, verify the information and add a reference. Val42 21:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Val42, Kudos on your improvements to the Time Tunnel article, I am an old fan myself, watched it as a kid back in the 60's and had considering adding an episode grid and episode synopsis (synopsi?) before myself, at one point I posted about starting a Time Tunnel task force to do so on wp:tv but there seemed to be no interest. Anyway, moving on to the subject at hand, what would you think of moving the episode grid to its own article something like List_Of_Time_Tunnel_episodes (As Star Trek and StarGate are set up) with a link from the main page? Also, would you consider expanding the episodes and setting each up as its own seperate article (again like Star Trek & Stargate) and adding some episode lists and such? Third, I have the Time Tunnel DVD sets and if you would like I perhaps could upload and populate your episode grids with fair use screen shots... Let me know if interested. Wikidenizen 20:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I figure that this should be discussed on The Time Tunnel talk page. I've answered your question there. Val42 04:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For all of your tireless contributions to Latter Day Saint related articles. Good work! Sincerely, ♠Tom@sBat 22:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you a Sick Freak? -- Tony G 06:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Mormon teachings about extraterrestrial life, has been listed by me for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mormon teachings about extraterrestrial life. Thank you. -SESmith 23:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:2007-0601-SquareMile.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 13:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This has been taken care of. Val42 17:58, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for improving my edits to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints:) Have a nice week and God bless:)--Sir James Paul 02:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sir James Paul has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

So, here's the thing. Your edit is better sourced than "It is claimed...", but far less notable. That is to say, what is notable is that the "Dark Side of the Rainbow" effect exists at all, or is asserted to exist. It's not particularly notable that Turner Classic Movies decided to broadcast it. Do you see what I mean? AJD 13:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This particular type of discussion is best dealt with on the talk page of the article in question. I have copied your comment there where we can reach a consensus by those involved in editing The Wizard of Oz (1939 film) article. Val42 01:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I am limited to having no fun at all. :) I do appreciate your comments and I apologize for going off topic, but sometimes I can not help myself. I have a distinct dislike of hypocrisy parading as innocence. That is compounded by the fact that when one is just plain ignorant and demanding to be recognized as factual then I feel forced to chime in. I will try to contain my darker side and just let things slide.

However, I suspect this will be an editor for all his stating he will leave it alone will be drawn back to his point. You are an asset to Wikipedia and I always enjoy and appreciate your comments. Cheers. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 17:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was glad to help. I find that I need to be reigned in from time-to-time as well. I even considered jumping into that fight, but I figured that I couldn't have done anything but escalate the fight, so I decided (to try) to end it. As I said in the discussion, I (also) don't think that he will leave it alone. When he jumps back in, just try to steer the discussion back on topic. — Val42 18:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are editors allowed to 'add' to another editor's comments on article talk pages? Though you moved it you never mentioned whether a rule had been broken or not. Duke53 | ^Talk 05:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes, the best solution is to be diplomatic rather than hit someone over the head with the rules. Since Storm Rider added to Billiot's comments then you removed them, I figured that it would probably happen again since he added back essentially the same comments. I figured that what I did was an acceptable compromise. The rules may be used as a later resort, but I'm trying to accomplish what seems right without being blunt to either side. I certainly need this sometimes as well. Val42 05:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I thought that this might have come into play:

Others' comments

It is not necessary to bring talk pages to publishing standards, so there is no need to correct typing errors, grammar, etc. It tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting.

Never edit someone's words to change their meaning. Editing others' comments is not allowed. There are exceptions, however. Some are:

• If you have their permission
• Removing prohibited material such as libel and personal details
• Removing personal attacks and incivility. This is controversial, and many editors do not feel it is acceptable; please read WP:ATTACK#Removal of text and WP:CIVIL#Removing uncivil comments before removing anything.
• Unsigned comments: You are allowed to append {{unsigned}} or one of its variants to the end of someone's comment if they have failed to sign it. The form is {{subst:unsigned|USER NAME OR IP}}, which results in —The preceding unsigned comment was added by USER NAME OR IP (talk • contribs) ..
• Interruptions: In some cases, it is OK to interrupt a long contribution, either by a short comment (as a reply to a minor point) or by a headline (if the contribution introduces a new topic). In that case, add "<small>Headline added to (reason) by ~~~~</small>"). In such cases, please add {{subst:interrupted|USER NAME OR IP}} before the interruption.
• When a long comment has formatting errors, rendering it difficult to read. In this case, restrict the edits to formatting changes only and preserve the content as much as possible.
• On your own user talk page, you may remove comments from others, although archiving is generally preferred. The text of another user's comment, however, may never be directly edited to misrepresent the person or change the meaning of the comment.

Must be tricky deciding 'when' to be 'diplomatic' or to cite rules when they are broken. I will pay more attention to see when it is appropriate. Duke53 | ^Talk 05:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are as free to remove his comments or my edits as much as anyone else. Do what you will. — Val42 05:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[2] That was an edit by an approved bot to standardize the portal box across Wikipedia. The bot was approved and the logo was already discussed at Wikiproject Free software. -- Kl4m ^{Talk Contrib} 04:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I didn't know that it had been approved. I see that you've already fixed it. — Val42 05:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to I agree with your assessment. I checked these three articles and these pages are no longer in this category. Someone removed this category, but I didn't check who. — Val42 17:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC) at Talk:Book_of_Abraham#.22Modern_pseudepigrapha.22_is_NPOV-vio —

It has been going back and forth several times, with one crusader continuing to revert (well more than three times) to put the NPOV-vio edits back in, including after you posted that comment - see, e.g. here.

I have been trading off with a few other editors in repeatedly removing the NPOV-vios from all four articles mentioned - but I don't want to do too many of the reverts myself. Could you please keep an eye on them and help take action as necessary? For example, the Book of Mormon article has the NPOV-vio category back in it at the present moment.

Thanks Val42,

- Reaverdrop _(talk/nl) 18:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Thanks again, Val42. - Reaverdrop _(talk/nl) 18:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Val, I was amused that you reverted a minor bit of vandalism and called it "Reverted personal opinion".

Just curious about your interest in the article. It is the worst article that I know on the Wikipedia. Most of the character descriptions contain material that is not supported by the show itself, but instead comes from network web sites. Since the show is aimed at young teens, the article seems to be edited mostly by young teens. I watch the page but have given up trying to edit it. Teenagers tend to get very defensive about their edits.

I am a fan of the show, despite being about your age. One day I'll invest the time to properly clean it up and get rid of all the copyright infractions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronstew (talk • contribs) 04:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC) (oops, sorry about the forgotten signature) Ronstew 04:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I figured that I would be mild about the vandalism and just call it personal opinion. I mostly just patrol the article rather than fixing anything major. I'm interested in it mostly because it is great computer-generated imagery for a television show, with motion capture, moving hair and clothes. The stories are somewhat interesting too. It has better plots than many of the prime-time, network shows. — Val42 04:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dab pages should be case insensitive. Splitting them is counter to WP guidelines and ends up confusing people. SchmuckyTheCat

You know, you could have accomplished the same thing by just putting this sentence in your edit comment. — Val42 01:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:2005-0623-Everwood.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 18:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Sam. I dorftrottel I talk I 04:59, November 25, 2007

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of SAM (disambiguation), and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Sam. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 21:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't yet finished the split, so the old information had been duplicated for a few minutes. — Val42 21:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree that the precursor section was speculative, full of POV and original research. Good call. I'll keep an eye on the page, but you might also want to add that page to your watchlist for a few weeks because the people who listed all those items may be quick to revert. Wryspy (talk) 23:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have this page on my watch list already and saw your comment that tagged the section. I agreed with you, so I removed the section. The closest that any work (that I've seen or read) comes to identifying this principle is The Time Machine (2002 film), but it didn't do so by name. — Val42 (talk) 23:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please review WP:3RR. Even when doing reverts of edits that are proper, as you did at Mormonism, you should not violate the 3RR rule. Instead, make a report at WP:AIV. Future violation of 3RR could result in a period of blocking. Thanks. JERRY ^talk _contribs 02:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that it didn't apply in a case like this. I stand corrected. — Val42 (talk) 03:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just reverted one of your recent edits in Criticism of Mormonism. But I want to discuss because I think you had some good stuff in there - you just arranged and worded it so it was a little too apologetic in tone. We started an overhaul of this article about a month ago because it had degenerated quite a bit. It was so apologetic that it was hard to tell what the actual criticisms were. I think your edit was pushing that section back down that road, muddying the waters a little bit. I would like to see your edit appended at the end of the section, just don't take out the clear statement at the beginning of what the criticism itself is all about. Let me know what you think. --Descartes1979 (talk) 07:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is one reason why I did a bunch of small edits. However, I think that the continuation of this type of conversation is better dealt with on the page under question, Criticism of Mormonism, so I will continue it there. Thanks for bringing it up here though. — Val42 (talk) 17:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Val42:

I'm putting this note here because I see your name in the edit history of the Book of Mormon article. There have been two "batches" of changes to the article recently. As I explained in the Talk, I reversed these changes, not because of the substance of the changes but because of the "process". Talk:Book of Mormon#Reversal of Changes

I'm hoping you and others will look at the substance of these changes. I don't want the people who made the changes to think their efforts were reversed and then simply ignored. (And I'm not able to comment seriously on the proposed changes.)

The two batches of changes I'm referring to are the ones made on December 15 by 24.2.75.193, and on December 17 by DJ Clayworth. (Because the changes were reversed, the best place to see them is through the article history.)

Thank you, Wanderer57 (talk) 18:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I will make comments on the changes on that article's talk page. — Val42 (talk) 20:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Val42, I just wanted to thank you for sorting this out: [3]. Very cool! regards, --guyzero | talk 21:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's been about a week. Which administrator do we take the issue of name moving too? Emperor001 (talk) 22:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could have any administrator do it. Start here and find out how to get an administrator to do it. — Val42 (talk) 00:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree with you that song should not be comedy. For Instance if that happened to your Grandma would you be laughing? If that happened to my Grandma I'll tell you rght now I would not laugh up a storm. Now lets say a 7 year old which by the way iam older than 7 but this is just an example alright? Anyway lets say a 7 year old hears that song for the first time and then the next day his/her family get a call saying their grandma has passed. And when that song comes on they start to not liking it and no longer find it funny. Thats something you should think about--Sweet100000 (talk) 04:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit was reverted by two different editors. Perhaps you should reconsider your position. — Val42 (talk) 05:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Val42

I have a comment about your edit to the Book of Mormon article, the statement: polygamy is forbidden unless commanded by the Lord.

The reference given to support this statement is Jacob2:27-30.

I am prepared to accept that these verses ARE UNDERSTOOD BY MEMBERS of the LDS Church to mean "polygamy is forbidden unless commanded by the Lord." I have no grounds to argue against this.

However, I think many people outside the church would not make this interpretation. To me, the "common-sense" interpretation of those verses is that only one wife is "allowed." Verse 27 seems very clear.

My point: since this is a general encyclopedia, IF the "common-sense" interpretation is not the one understood by the church, some explanation seems to be called for.

I would appreciate your feedback on this. Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 19:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that you brought this question up on my talk page. However, since this is a discussion about improving the article, I think that it will be best discussed on that article's talk page. I will bring it up there. — Val42 (talk) 16:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]