User talk:ChristensenMJ

Welcome...

Hello, ChristensenMJ, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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

BYU Hawaii spelling

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

FYI, BYUH is not hyphenated (see BYUH homepage) while BYU-I is hyphenated (see BYU-I homepage). Please keep the Wikipedia naming conventions in accordance with the official formatting. --Eustress (talk) 00:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So why aren't they consistent? 174.23.184.242 (talk) 07:50, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the question, 174.23.184.242. Noting that the comments made were well over 6 years ago, the wp articles without a hyphen were not correct, so just required the updating of the articles that didn't include a hyphen. ChristensenMJ (talk) 16:40, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly nudge

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary for your edits. Thank you. —Eustress ^talk 16:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC) [reply]

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

April 2009

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

Sustained vs ordained dates

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

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

CES Board Changes

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

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

Hartford Conneticut Temple

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

Hi! You have been busy & doing a great job on the list of general authorities, area seventies, & temples. Thank you! As to the Hartford Connecticut Temple, I agree with you on the template listing. Having the history reflected in the article is sufficient for my feeling as well. I noticed a moment ago that the info in the article regarding the "recent" announcement is in bad shape - off badly on the date among other things. I will probably get to that tomorrow. Thanks for the question - that is my 2 cents worth! ChristensenMJ (talk) 14:19, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

a question for you......on the article for Thomas S. Monson, how do we change the text of the picture showing him greeting George W. Bush? It references Dieter F. Uchtdorf, but he is not in the picture. The person partially seen in the background is Brook Hales, secretary to the First Presidency. ChristensenMJ (talk) 14:19, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

yet another note - I agree with your change on the General Conference article about who presents the sustaining - had the same thought today, but ran out of time to update. ChristensenMJ (talk) 14:19, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to change the caption on the photo. That will have to be left up to someone with much more WP experience than I have. Glad to see that you agree with the General Conference change. Hopefully my edit made it much more clear. Btw, in future, when I post a message on someone's talk page, I don't habitually check the same user page for an answer. Rather, I leave a request for them to respond on my talk page. It was only on a hunch that I checked your talk page today. So, in the future, if you have a response to my questions or additional questions to ask me, I'd appreciate it if you would post those on my talk page. That would be a lot more convenient for me. Thanks. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 00:10, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

General Authority Assignments

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

On the list we have, I see Elder Choi, Elder Zivic, and Elder Gibbons listed as Assistant Executive Directors of the Temple Department. So now my question is, who is the 4th person you spoke of? Also, on the list that you are taking this information from, does it contain any other assignments of general authorities that we can put on that page? Again, please respond on my talk page. Thanks. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 14:15, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you forgot to respond to the second question of my last post, so I'll ask it again: On the list that you got the information from about the Temple Department Assistant Executive Directors, does it list any other assignments for seventies that we don't have on the WP list? Any additional information you can contribute would be appreciated. Again, please respond on my talk page. Thanks. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 22:53, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are other changes, but we'll have to wait until they're officially announced? I really wish you hadn't said that. My curiosity is piqued. I won't ask what these changes are, much as I want to. You're probably not at liberty to say. One question I can ask: Where are you getting all this information? Do you by any chance have access to the CDOL? What Church position do you hold that allows you to be privy to this information? These are questions I feel I can ask. In the meantime, for the sake of my sanity, any additional information you feel you can give me, even if we have to wait until it's officially announced to list it here, would be appreciated. If you can tell me anything, I promise that I won't make it public. However, if you can't give me any more details until it's official, I understand completely. I am copying my comments here to my talk page, where I hope you will respond to this post as you have the past ones. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 23:40, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reworded and copied from Talk: List of general authorities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: I notice that you claim that Elder Ringwood, formerly the First Counselor in the Asia North Area, is now the President, replacing Presiding Bishop Stevenson, and that Elder Yamashita, formerly unassigned, is the new First Counselor. I will be the first to admit that when it comes to inside information about general authorities, you have always been right. But I think that since changes in Area Presidencies have always been sourced in the past that this change needs to be sourced as well. I will leave it up to you to provide that source at your convenience. Exciting news! Do you have any insight as to who will replace Bishop Causse as First Counselor in the Europe Area? You can respond to this message either on my talk page, or the talk page listed above. Thanks for all your great work! --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 08:31, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Boise Idaho Temple: I goofed!

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

Emeritus General Authorities

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

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

We meet again

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

Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (LDS Church)

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

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

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

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

Walter F. González

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

No need to apologize! I appreciated the newsroom update that you included - I was only going by this link - http://www.ldschurchnews.com/articles/62978/South-America-South-Area-presidency-changes.html - which says "has" been released. There are a ton of other changes that would need to be addressed and modified, given the known timing in January. ChristensenMJ (talk) 01:10, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

An interesting (but very minor) issue

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

Ah, that is an interesting point you've asked about! Good question. Knowing that not only the book cover showed it that way, but also with the differences between Latter Day Saint vs. Latter-day Saints, I hadn't made any connection for something different. Also, thanks for the clarification you made the other day on the Robert S. Woods article - indicating how we don't update direct quotes. I just know - which I probably learned, thanks in large part to your tutoring efforts (which is a great thing)- how "church" is normally reflected overall, but also with the sensitivity others have expressed when people try to note on LDS-related articles about "the Church."

Yes, any material that is directly quoted can be thought of as an exception to the regular WP conventions. We don't change the quotes unless there's a need to do so for some reason, such as eliminating an unneeded sentence with a "..." or similar. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great, that's helpful! I am still a rather staunch novice at much of this, so thank you!! ChristensenMJ (talk) 01:42, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're doing great work, keep it up! Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:34, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, thanks. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:53, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha - no problem! When JGStokes did it, he left me a note that said he kept getting like 200+ years of service for MK Jensen, so I sorted it out, but only from copying one of the others that works! I haven't actually looked much at the "formulas" myself! ChristensenMJ (talk) 21:04, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eldred G. Smith may get there yet. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For sure!!! :) ChristensenMJ (talk) 21:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request for help @ General Authorities page.

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

President

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

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

Congrats

		The Editor's Barnstar
		For displaying particularly fine decisions in general editing. Keep up the good work! —Eustress ^talk 03:54, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kindness! We all just keep at it together, don't we! ChristensenMJ (talk) 03:58, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BYU Facial Hair policy

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

Thank you for the comment. If you remember what Wikipedia is, an enclyclopedia of sorts, this is still far too detailed for inclusion in an article. The exception was summarized in sufficient detail. The procedures of getting an ID picture and all that sort of detail would never be included in a encyclopedia article. You are stretching to indicate it's unwarranted and arbitrary - no more so than including it, so keep it neutral! If you feel strongly about the need to help others out, perhaps you can include a link or reference to reflect the procedures. For now, I will assume you have restored it and I will probably head back over and remove it again, for the reasons stated. ChristensenMJ (talk) 21:32, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To reiterate, facial hair exceptions are an area of Brigham Young University's honor code which have special provisions unlike any other element of the honor code. This fact warrants better description within an encyclopedic article. Your assertion to the contrary is a subjective judgment with which I entirely disagree. In my view, there was not sufficient detail in the article as it was in regards to obtaining an exemption. Having the procedure simply laid out in the wikipedia entry is very useful for those wishing to understand how exemptions might be obtained. Moreover, the procedure as described is in fact part of the honor code itself. I disagree with your reasons stated and I will add the section back in if removed. As I mentioned before, you might move it to the Enforcement section if you believe it to be better suited to that section. As for the information itself, however, it is entirely factual. You also accuse the inclusion of lacking neutrality. You accuse me of stretching things to demonstrate they are "unwarranted and arbitrary," but my additions say no such thing. In fact, they neutrally lay out the basic procedure--within the Honor Code itself--to obtain a beard exemption. If you believe the policies are unwarranted and arbitrary" that is your opinion, but my description of them is factually neutral.MacamemeandCheese (talk) 21:53, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An apparent continued misunderstanding exists of the purpose and intent of articles. 21:56, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

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

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

Emma Smith

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

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

Edward Dube

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

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

BYU Rankings

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

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

Gamiette

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

Well, that second link is a good part of what we're after - it does make it a bit more complex when their bio is published prior to the assignments being announced. Thanks!! ChristensenMJ (talk) 22:09, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, then I found this case [3] where in 2010 Jorge Miguel Alvarado was called from Puerto RIco to preside over the mission in Puerto Rico. This might be more common than we think.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:23, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that particularly as the church has grown and matured in some of these other areas of the world, there is not only not a "need" for North Americans to go and preside, but that these men are ready and able to serve in their own areas. That is one of the reasons I was reticent to start trying to provide too many examples, or exceptions, because it's hard to track any and all circumstances (let alone perhaps not all that helpful to the article). ChristensenMJ (talk) 22:26, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, but of couse most non-north American Mission presidents are not exceptions. Akingbode A. Ojo will be a Nigerian serving as mission president in Nigeria, but he is not from within the mission (he is from Calabar, which is is a mission headquarters, but will be serving in Benin City). Pretty much all the new mission presidents in Brazil, and most of them in Mexico, are from the country, but even the new mission presidents in Reynosa and Ciudad Juarez are coming from outside those mission, while it appears both are coming from within the boundaries of the mission those cities are currently in (they are among the 58 new missions). One possible way to have Hinckley, Joseph and Gamiette as justified examples is that Hinckley came from a country with lots of missions, so having a national as mission president does not require calling someone from within the mission, Joseph came from a one-mission country so to have a national as mission president you generally have to call from within the country (I guess they could call a Haitian temporarily resident in the US or other places though), and Gamiette presided over a mission that covered 10 or more countries, so it is a really complexed example, especially since technically Guadaloupe is part of France so if Gamiette had been sent as mission president to Paris he would be a national serving as mission president. The other factor that makes Gamiette slightly different is that while he was a native of Guadaloupe, his wife is a native of mainland France, whereas Joseph's wife is a native of Haiti.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:39, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, agreed, the areas of growth and maturity referred to certainly don't include places like Mexico and Brazil, where the church has been 1) long established and 2) is of a size that allows for such events - not much different than a man from Florida being called to preside in Oregon. Isn't life great? For me at least, sometimes the more I take something that seems pretty straightforward and dig into it, I find it's not near as simple as it seemed!! And I always prefer simple! :) ChristensenMJ (talk) 22:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

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

GA Page.

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

Hi! Hope you are well!? I will try and have a look when I can. I actually have received some similar messages on my talk page for other edits the past couple of months, but when I go back and look I can't see anything either, so we'll see what we can find on yours!! ChristensenMJ (talk) 19:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, it's me again. I was just at the General Authorities page and noticed (much to my frustration) that the ability to sort the tables by age, years served, name, etc. has disappeared. Do you know what happened and/or how to restore that feature? Thanks in advance for any help you might be able to give me on this. Please respond on the GA talk page. Thanks. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 06:39, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - --Jgstokes - I actually saw your comment on the GA page a bit ago and went and tried it, it still appeared for me and worked just fine, so I am not sure what's causing your experience. ChristensenMJ (talk) 06:42, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nice catch: As of date for Area Seventies

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

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

City Creek Center

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

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

BYU Honor Code Page

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

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

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

P.S. Doesn't it concern you that the LDS church violates its own beliefs? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.199.59.208 (talk) 17:55, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Revert of my Hamilton New Zealand Temple edit

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

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

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

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

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

Michael Reed edits

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

Hi, Jgstokes! Yes, it seems there is - or at least was in the beginning - too much of users taking it personally and feeling that censoring and fabricating of rules was taking place. Based on responses, I still don't think it's understood. (Although slightly different in motivation behind the edits, I actually had a similar experience start at about the same time on the BYU Honor Code article.) I do understand where you are coming from. My guess is that there likely wouldn't be a statement per se from one of the brethren, other than some of those addressing the focus on the living Christ. I personally don't think the proposed edit adds to the value of the article, sourced or not, so it's hard for me to get too ramped up about it. I also think, as you may have read, that even if it's added, there needs to be improved npov writing. I don't see that inclusion of who may or may not have struggled with anti-Catholic feelings has any value, relevance or significance. Then with the single-focus that Reed and those he's recruited to help in the matter have it's hard to see where a reasonable discussion can take place. So, I don't know that I am really answering your question - if it were me, I probably wouldn't bear out a strong or unflexible stance, just because it's not going to go anywhere overall. Thanks for your continuing efforts! ChristensenMJ (talk) 22:15, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Jgstokes. I thought I would note something here in our conversation. I think what is being said on the Culture talk page about the Reed book overstates my position. As I noted above, I don't anticipate there would be a statement by any church authorities. I don't think it adds much to article and my primary issue was conflict of interest and self promotion, sockpuppet behavior, etc. - not any demand for something. I noted above that I wouldn't bear out a strong of unflexible stance because it's not going anywhere anyway. I have replied here in a good faith effort not to have to contradict your thoughts right on the talk page, to try and give you that opportunity to amend as needed. Thanks for all you do! ChristensenMJ (talk) 01:55, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I kind of "changed my mind" and went ahead and added a brief note to the article's talk page. ChristensenMJ (talk) 02:58, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Thomas S. Monson lawsuit

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

Hi, Jgstokes. Thanks for the message. I actually agree with your thought to just step away. You've had a chance to express your view, as I have also done. A single user pushing for inclusion isn't going to have a great impact when it seems the community is in favor of not including. I think there is wisdom in the saying "never reason with a drunk" - trying to convince some when there are clearly differing views doesn't often go too far. For now, I would just let it go and if there is a time a response is needed, as we keep it more "fact based" and address issues, rather than opinions or things that are pointed toward personal issues, it can help. ChristensenMJ (talk) 17:35, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Jgstokes: I agree with ChristensenMJ here. Sometimes it's better to just not respond and let an issue die on its own. If there's a serious attempt to include the material or new rational arguments presented, that can be responded to, but right now it seems like the talk page is being used more for soap boxing than actual reasons to include the material, and that is best left ignored in my opinion. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:34, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CDOL and New General Authority Assignments

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

Zwick's assignment as Mission President

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

Charles Edwin Shipp's edits on M. Russell Ballard

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

Thanks. I have some beginning experience in WP editing, approaching 5,000 edits in seven years. Recently, I had a minor comment from "Dr Jim" who has 100,000 edits! Anyway, reason I am mentioning this is I am an eager learner, my second hobby. I'm currently wondering if just one sentence is ample for the hallmark of his Apostleship(?) There are other aspects of his article/page that could be improved. I don't intend to do this for all twelve + three (general authorities) but I have been in Elder Ballard's home (Dad was his hometeacher) and in his office, (with his secretary, Sister Hyde) and may visit her this week, since we travel from L.A. this week to the annual Melaleuca Convention in SLC. There is a lot more I could say regarding WP editing and my views and will be taking your wise advise. -- Truly, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:50, 12 May 2014 (UTC) And Thanks In Advance (TIA).[reply]

Hello, Jgstokes and Charles Edwin Shipp. Thank you both for the efforts you make in strengthening Wikipedia, particularly in efforts toward the LDS Church. I realize the introduction at the recent CES Devotional, as well as the information listed for Ballard on LDS.org, includes the sentence about his involvement in missionary work. It is true that having been an apostle for nearly 29 years, that he's had significant assignments related to missionary work. I probably just have a general aversion to trying to attribute specific areas of ministry and impact to those who are not the church's president. One could go through most church presidents and attribute some form of "theme" or "focus" toward their presiding stewardship, whether it be Benson's focus on the Book of Mormon or Monson's focus on rescuing. As the president sets the tone and direction of the church, I think we're hard pressed to try and get the other apostles out in front of the presiding officer. Apostles are involved certainly where some of their talents and skills are utilized best, but they are assigned there by the First Presidency. What about all of Ballard's focus on councils within the church, or significant time spent in CES assignments, or Public Affairs assignments, and the list goes on. Not only is it hard to nail down just a single area of focus or "much of his ministry" area and appropriately source it for WP purposes, I am just not sure it's a great idea. As you both know, these particular 15 men serve a unique role that is at the same time both very focused in its scope, but also by its nature ends up very broad. I don't think trying to isolate too much single purpose or focus serves that role as well as it should. I firmly agree with Charles Edwin Shipp that it would be wrong (let alone difficult) to try and do this for the 15 men spoken of, let alone all the other general authorities that serve in the church. So, that's my two cents at least for now as you go forward and consider how to best proceed. ChristensenMJ (talk) 04:52, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, ChristensenMJ, and I thank you for it. My main object in inquiring of you as to how best to proceed was so as to not potentially hurt Charles Edwin Shipp's feelings by eliminating the sentence he felt was valid enough to include. I must say I much prefer your answer to the one that was given on the relevant article's talk page. So I guess the best course of action is to not try and establish a central focus of any given general authority's ministry unless and until they become the President of the Church. And even then it can sometimes be tricky pining down a central point of ministry focus when their ministry is not yet complete. Although I do agree that President Monson will likely be remembered for encouraging us to reach out and rescue, among so many other wonderful hallmarks. So I believe it will be best if we leave the sentence out, at least for now. I hope that won't offend you, Charles. In the meantime, Charles and Michael, I could use your help with something else. There are a number of new topics that have recently been started by me on the List of general authorities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints talk page. I would appreciate it if you both could examine the conversations and weigh in with your opinions. There has been a particular disagreement between myself and another editor about the notability of members of the Second Quorum of the Seventy that has left me quite frustrated. In a nutshell, I felt it was unfair to have articles for some 2nd Quorum members but not all, and his response was that some are more notable than others. But when I have asked how that can be, instead of answering, he just responds with "Unless they're transferred to the First Quorum, their notability generally only lasts a few years." One question I have asked him which I wanted him to take time to consider was what makes Tad R. Callister more notable than his older brother Douglas L. Callister. I know that Tad has served in the Presidency of the Seventy and is now serving as Sunday School general president, which does make him notable, but his older brother served faithfully in the quorum for nine years and later as a temple president. In my mind, one Callister is no less notable than the other. There's an article for Robert S. Wood, who was in the Second Quorum for 10 years and was later a temple president, but not for L. Edward Brown or C. Max Caldwell. Brown was a temple president after his release, and Caldwell is known and respected as a sealer and Church History scholar even though he passed away 2 years ago. In my mind, there's not much difference in notability. And I think it's very unfair to have articles for some Second Quorum members but not all, which is why I created 10 new articles for the currently serving Second Quorum members that didn't have one. Anyways, the long and the short of it is, I need you both to weigh in on this and other issues so that it's not just me and this other editor trying to figure out what the "fair" thing to do about each issue is. So if you could go review those topics and respond at your leisure, I'd appreciate it. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 06:47, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response and associated thoughts, Jgstokes. I would not anticipate Charles will have his feelings hurt as everyone is acting in good faith. The only care that might be taken is to ensure we don't just use talk pages or articles to try and editorialize or have a subpage culture to many of the LDS-themed articles, for which people feel strong affinity and want to include additional "resources" or information. Next, I have glanced through the discussion you referenced on the talk page that has been taking place about the Second Quorum of the Seventy. If I could share a thought or two, one would be my own encouragement to retain a measured, balanced view and tone when inviting or responding to feedback. As the other user has indicated, this is not about him. He has indicated no concerns on his part about former general authorities having articles written about them, he's just indicating that others may have some concerns. Just be aware not to challenge an editor too directly as if he's got skin in the game, when that is not the case. You've both tried to address that & you've taken care to try and identify that you're not upset, but frustrated by what seems a different standard. I would also say that as you have done with the current members, feel free to create articles about others who have served. I think GoodOlfactory is just saying there may be some who challenge the notability. I think we have both seen and interacted with him as an editor enough to know the very balanced and fair view he brings to WP. I realize there are some/many who would say that just because someone is a general authority for a season does not automatically make them notable. I can appreciate that point of view, though I also don't see the harm in having the articles in existence. I sometimes think people are a bit quick on the trigger to nominate for deletion - but some of that also comes when essentially all/most of sources are from or about the LDS Church. A similar thing to consider or study is whether a comparable "level" of leadership in say the Catholic Church warrants an article for all who may be in those "callings" or positions. I don't know if it does or not and have never looked into it. The size of the Catholic Church by itself clearly creates an additional sense of notability when people rise to certain leadership roles, simply from the large number of adherents. A final side note I would share is that there is an article about L. Edward Brown. It's been in existence for perhaps as much as 7 years. I actually just made some edits there a couple days ago. A close friend of mine served under his direction in Korea when he was the mission president, so I knew that article existed (as the blue link in your comment reflects). So, I don't know that I am helping here at all - I would say feel free to create articles from Callister or Caldwell, but then be prepared to know that someone may challenge the notability if "all" they are known for is LDS Church service. Thanks so much! ChristensenMJ (talk) 08:19, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Kevin S. Hamilton nominated for deletion.

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

Terence M. Vinson and Gregory A. Schwitzer nominated for deletion.

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

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

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

CDOL

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

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

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

Message

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

My recent absence from Wikipedia

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

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

This user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

ChristensenMJ (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

127.0.0.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Block message:

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

Blocking administrator: Vsmith (talk • blocks)

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

edit warring

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

Thanks for your thoughts, John from Idegon. The title you've given to this section isn't relevant, as no edit warring has taken place. Sourced content was added and you removed it, perhaps because you didn't like the source. That doesn't make the source invalid. It's not like this was a blog, personal opinion or original research shared. No better source was requested, but even if that's desired, there should be a request, perhaps on the talk page as you've noted, to find additional sources. Not just a revert where you think the math didn't work out as you thought it should. So, the options you have given may be valid if there isn't a presumption that it's one editor who feels the source isn't valid. Reverting was a perfectly appropriate option given the situation. Thanks so much for your efforts to further WP. ChristensenMJ (talk) 03:40, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is about time to take this to Admin's, your conduct is biased and John is correct. You can not only use the good parts of a story and omit the balance and cumulative perspective it provides, only parsing out what it is you want to believe. talk→ WPPilot 04:36, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment, WPPilot. Do you what feel is best, but I can assure you my conduct is not biased. I didn't parse out anything. You added content that is not supported in the reference it immediately precedes. It amounts to original research to add the information you did. It may be true that people were across the street doing this, my edit summary notes that. Just source it as you would expect others to do. That seems fair and reasonable. There is no sense of bias in that request. ChristensenMJ (talk) 04:42, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If a "handful of people" is worthy of note..... ChristensenMJ (talk) 04:58, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

http://articles.latimes.com/2005/jul/24/local/me-mormon24

As I have tried to say, feel free write it appropriately, using npov, and to source it. The recent addition, trying to attribute this to a July 2005 KSL story that doesn't exist, is why I reverted it. That's what I have said all along. ChristensenMJ (talk) 04:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If a "handful of people" is worthy of note to somehow balance the article..... WPPilot ChristensenMJ (talk) 04:58, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What did you say? It is about notability, you have 4 locations that published something (in 2005) that was related to its opening and your dead set that it is a important building when it simply is not. It is only important in the minds of people that are told, and believe it is important. Wikipedia is not for mind reading members of the LDS to spread the word. If it has citations use them, if you can not find them, it will be deleted. 4 stories from 2005's open house does not cut the mustard here chief. talk→ WPPilot 05:05, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what "what did you say?" is supposed to mean. It appears that a few of you got started on this whole string as a City of Newport Beach issue, that remains with the group of you. There isn't anything in here about spreading the word or mind reading. ChristensenMJ (talk) 05:23, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon B Hinckley

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

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Gordon_B_Hinckley_Edit_Warring

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

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

What is happening on that page is textbook edit warring. I will be protecting the page from editing in order to give you both a chance to discuss the matter on the talk page. If edit warring resumes after the protection expires, the next step is for one or both of you to be blocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:53, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Reference Errors on 20 January

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 List of missions of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 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) 00:20, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Salt Lake Tribune

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

Thanks, t. I made another small adjustment then in light of your desired edit, since the ownership was already identified in the article a couple sentences later (why I noted it wasn't needed in reverting your edit). ChristensenMJ (talk) 19:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) :I didn't realize it was already mentioned that the LDS church owns the newspaper, my edit was just to revert back to your version before I did my first edit to it today, there are no intervening edits other than your reverts so nothing was lost in the revert. Just having the note in the history section that they bought it wasn't entirely clear so I appreciate your edit. Cat-five t c ---- 19:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Didnt' mean to revert your fixes, went back to your latest version and I'm going to stop editing it now so I don't mix it up again. Cat-five t c ---- 19:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem! Sounds great! Thanks for your efforts!! ChristensenMJ (talk) 20:40, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Template:LDS Temple/Idaho Falls Idaho Temple

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

I suggest that if you don't think it is correct, bring it up on Talk:List of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Then it can be corrected.--- ARTEST4ECHO^(Talk) 18:05, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, ARTEST4ECHO, thanks for the message. I am not sure I completely follow what you're saying about the templates - where does the "open" part kick in? I see that in the listing it notes on all 5 that are currently closed that is the case, but there may be some other issues with the templates that I don't readily see and/or haven't worked with before. Thanks so much! ChristensenMJ (talk) 18:11, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are a large number of automatic tempaltes that change things based on the "Status" of the temple". For example, on the map on Template:List LDS Temple USA Northwest

I have been adjusting the ones I know about to take into account your choice in words. Until I made this edit the missing "S" the map kept the Dot on the map Template:List LDS Temple USA West Map as red or "Open". Additionally until I made this edit, the temple is listed as "Open" at Template:List LDS Temple USA Northwest. I have changed those to take into account your choice in word.

Unfortunately there are several other templates that I haven't yet figured out how they work that need the same changes. I suggest leaving the "S" in place and then bring up the change at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement/Temples so that all the other templates can be changed.--- ARTEST4ECHO^(Talk)

OK, thanks so much for your response and the efforts! I wondered if perhaps something on the maps were an issue, since the "text" associated with listing and templates shows the designation. ChristensenMJ (talk) 18:23, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The "status = " text is used in a "switch" statement to determine the color of the dot and the what text to display next to the name. For example if I chose "status = Closed" the dot on the map will appear as black and "(closed)" will appear next to the name. Unfortunately only an "exact" match works. Even capitalization matters. I have change two of the issues, but I know there are going to be many more. I really suggest you leave the "S" for now and then bring it up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement/Temples. Then the 10+ other templates used in the "Temple" pages will still work. Then those of you with much better grammar skills can decided who is right and wrong.--- ARTEST4ECHO^(Talk) 18:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sounds great. Looks like we need to go into all 5 that are closed at this time then and update them...... The other thing I did last week was include in the status of the Mexico City Temple a status of "Closed for Renovation / Rededication Scheduled" - which sounds like it would also be a problem with various templates. ChristensenMJ (talk) 20:08, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural Mormon

The link links to a plastic surgeon's website. Please look at links before you reinstate them. It has nothing to do with the article or Cultural Mormonism. Royal Mate1 19:46, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Disambiguation link notification for April 8

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

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

Disambiguation link notification for April 15

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

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

Joseph Smith - Live Birth vs. Stillborn

I redid the edits to the Joseph Smith page. The previous reference of Bushman p69-70 is incorrect and does not talk about the death of his son. I corrected not only the information that it was a live birth, as supported by the source, but also corrected the page number. If there is another reference that mentions a still birth then please correctly reference that material. Here is a link to the correct page in the reference material. https://encrypted.google.com/books?id=Mz3tpz4eRBQC&q=named+Alvin+after+Joseph%E2%80%99s+older+brother#v=onepage&q=named%20Alvin%20after%20Joseph%E2%80%99s%20older%20brother&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brownmattc (talk • contribs) 23:25, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Harold B Lee

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

April 2015

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

Winkelvi Actually I didn't add anything. These have been there for a very long time. You will have noticed that two other users, and IP and another suddenly got into a war about these. I am just restoring to what has been there. All they are is links to different parts of Mormonism, appropriate to the article. If the guidelines really don't allow for any 'see also' type of reference - such as linking to the official website of a university or other institution, that is fine - though seems harmless. Again, just know I didn't add anything - I was restoring long standing ELs that somebody started removing and they were warring over. Thanks so much! ChristensenMJ (talk) 03:16, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. In any case, you shouldn't be restoring the links - the reasoning for removing them is solid and in line with policy. Joining in the edit warring over reverting the removed content back in isn't advised. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:18, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thoughts and understanding, Winkelvi. However, I think that given wp:elofficial there isn't anything wrong with the links that were there. They generally don't appear to be things like just random blogs - or may provide additional background, information, etc. on the topic of the article, with those typically from an independent news source simply doing reporting on the topic. ChristensenMJ (talk) 03:24, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mormons

u know that I did not add or remove any links to that article don't u? 118.93.85.100 (talk) 03:12, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, 118.93.85.100, at a quick glance it appears you primarily tried to update the info related to the PBS link. You're biggest problem is the edit warring that you've engaged in, for which my guess is that you're likely to get blocked. ChristensenMJ (talk) 03:27, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

just so, Copenhagen temple is hard to find RS on. But Lyn Wilder and her book are notable. A young man with whom Wilder and her family were close was sent to Denmark, and the Wilder family visited him in Copenhagen, attended the Temple, and she wrote about the visit.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:41, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the Temple in Portland is such a large institution that I am surprised to find it up for AFD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:41, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, E.M.Gregory. I guess I am just playing a bit of devil's advocate here - "who" says that Lyn Wilder and her book are notable - and just because they happen to visit this young man while in Denmark, how does that improve the article, make it notable, or really have a true impact on the article. I am just not sure any of that has been demonstrated. "Any" temple that is visited by "any" person, notable or not, wouldn't typically make the temple notable, in and of itself. ChristensenMJ (talk) 02:17, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Thanks so much, L235!! ChristensenMJ (talk) 22:45, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, from a DR/N volunteer

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

Thanks for the message, L235. I am not sure whether the resolution discussion needs to remain open or not. The user who brought it as one who used 4 different IP addresses and in first time editing, focused on a small part of one article. That was the issue the user raised - before content removal I had wanted opportunity for consensus discussion opportunity. Subsequently, another new IP and another user who had previously only done 6-7 edits last October appeared for either a single day, or a few days at the most. The latter user and I engaged in some discussion and subsequent updates of the Harold B. Lee article in question, now that user has been silent again for a number of days. I personally have no more things to contribute to the resolution discussion, unless any of the day-use IPs appear again and are insistent upon non-consensus driven content removal. Thanks for your willingness to assist. ChristensenMJ (talk) 01:04, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would you prefer that I closed the DRN case? Thanks, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 01:05, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, obviously I didn't open it or make the complaint, so I didn't know if I could suggest that. To me, it seems that would be reasonable, but also why I tried above to give some background and context, so you'd have a flavor of where things stand - at least from my viewpoint. ChristensenMJ (talk) 01:08, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a formal notice that barring objection, this DRN case will close in 24 hours. Thanks, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 03:34, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IP socking at LDS biographies

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

@NeilN: thanks for looking into it! It's maddening how many bios this vandal is targeting.– Gilliam (talk) 04:10, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Russell M Nelson - seniority

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

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

Thomas S. Monson

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

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

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

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

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

Russell M. Nelson

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

I for one am grateful to ChristensenMJ's edit on Russell M. Nelson's page. While I know it's common sense that Nelson is now the President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, he has not by any account been sustained or set apart as such. As a matter of fact, at the funeral for Boyd K. Packer, Nelson gave the opening prayer. And in announcing this, Henry B. Eyring said that the prayer would be offered by Elder Russell M. Nelson of the Quorum of the TWelve Apostles. If he has not in public been referred to as the Quorum's President, we should wait until an official announcement or source can be cited. It is not citation overkill. Rather, it is merely necessary to ensure that the information is sourced before it is implemented into this page. Just my two cents. --Jgstokes (talk) 23:15, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Jgstokes and I were responding at the same time.....) : Thanks for the message, ARTEST4ECHO. Yes, I certainly understand the concept of overkill. As I noted in the edit summary, this seemed to have been somewhat of a compromise, since as you noted, it had been challenged. There were editors wanting to make the change, along with those who said he was not in that role until an official announcement was made. As you know, this being virtually the only LDS Church assignment/calling that works this way, he effectively became the quorum's president upon Packer's death. Even with the death of a church president, it's not automatic until the First Presidency is reorganized, with the senior apostle or quorum president in the appropriate presiding role, but not yet as the president. It is natural that out of respect, no announcement would be made until after today's funeral. That's at least the reasoning behind it. ChristensenMJ (talk) 23:21, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1978 Revelation on Priesthood

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

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

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

Thanks/Question

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

Thanks for your comments and efforts, Jgstokes. Yes, as I noted in the edit summaries on the articles about the apostles, I agree on the need for some sourcing to the ref note that you initiated. I will try and go back and look a bit more on the Sunday School article. I don't notice any right off the top that should be bolded, given the things we've talked about, but I'll have a look. As I have mentioned before, I don't know if the church will choose to make any kind of "official" announcement regarding the Commissioner or not. It leaves the potential for that change, along with those that will come to the Board of Trustees/Education, without any accompanying sources. ChristensenMJ (talk) 15:33, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jgstokes, since you noted the edit/reversion I did on the article for Kim B. Clark, the issue just remains as we've discussed - how/if the church will do any formal announcement. Part of the revert was also just because it needed to be added in better, more typical WP form, including in the lede, but that is another issue altogether. ChristensenMJ (talk) 14:42, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jgstokes, I have gone ahead this morning and made changes to the articles for Paul V. Johnson and Kim B. Clark regarding the Commissioner of Church Education. As we've noted here, there isn't yet a source that I am aware of, but it is anticipated that following a Seminary and Institute training broadcast tomorrow, where Clark will speak, that one will become available that will at least note his new role. I guess we'll see if you, or other editors, feel it appropriate to wait until there is a verified source. I have included a citation needed note on the Clark article. ChristensenMJ (talk) 15:43, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ChristensenMJ, I have no objections whatsoever to the above-mentioned material being added, especially since I know you have an inside track to know about things like this. If you're right, we'll know about the veracity and verifiability of this edit before the end of tomorrow. In the meantime, thanks for your updates to General Authorities pages, particularly in adding the new area leadership assignments. Also, thanks for your edits to Teachings of Presidents of the Church. I am usually on top of news like that. For whatever reason, I wasn't this year. But I'm excited to know we will be studying the life and teachings of Howard W. Hunter next year. Thanks for sharing this news, and thanks for all your great work! --Jgstokes (talk) 04:19, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Jgstokes. Depending on how/when the Church News writers cover the training broadcast, it may be later in the week, but there is usually coverage of this annual broadcast given in that source. I am not sure if we got all the individual pages of those serving in area presidency assignments and in some cases they have been there prior to the 2015 ref that is now included, but at least it's a start. Another user actually put in the Hunter curriculum for next year, but as we've both often done, I reverted until there was a source, which came today. Thanks for all you do! ChristensenMJ (talk) 04:40, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will keep an eye out for such a source, and you can be sure I will post one as soon as I am able, unless I'm beaten to the punch. It looks like, even if some were neglected, you sourced a good majority of all the new assignments. Good work! I'm not going to nitpick over who actually put in the Hunter information. It was enough that you found a source and cared enough to cite it. I came of age and was baptized during President Hunter's administration, but didn't pay much attention to General Conference until sometime during President Hinckley's tenure as prophet, so I was very excited this year to study the teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, and I look forward to studying Howard W. Hunter's teachings next year. Thanks for all your great work! --Jgstokes (talk) 08:13, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Recent edits to Brigham Young and Boyd K. Packer

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

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

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

George Albert Smith's Mental and Emotional illness.

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

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

Delete it again, and I'll report you for edit warring.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.130.200.180 (talk) 17:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thoughts that above that are in good faith, 65.130.200.180. Perhaps the spirit of collaboration could start with you toning down on things. I am grateful to see that for a new IP user with a focused purpose that you are aware of guidelines of WP. I make no claim to ownership of anything. I am glad to see that perhaps some of the recent edits you are making to this talk section reflects a better understanding of this. I suggest you take this whole thing to the article's talk page. ChristensenMJ (talk) 14:16 17:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Take care.65.130.200.180 (talk) 19:53, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Temple status template and CES page edits

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

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

Thanks and Questions

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

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

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

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

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

Fraternities at BYU

Hey, concerning your second revert, I assumed you initially reverted it because my citation had a syntax error in the citation. But, aware now that you did see it and your concerns are more than just an 'appropriate ref' (which made me think you hadn't seen my initial ref) but about WP:RS instead. I was unaware initially of the nature of the 100HB and assumed it to be a more or less direct source, but that said, what would you considered a reliable source on the subject? Would this, an archived page coming from (what I assume to be) Dr. Susan Rugh at BYU's History department, be more along the RS lines for you?: http://web.archive.org/web/20040816082839/http://fhss.byu.edu/history/faculty/rugh/sflc/campusgroup/socialclubs.html If not, I'd appreciate some help locating a more solid source, as this certainly a subject that, at least concerning collegiate life in North America, is a significant component that isn't mentioned in the article. Green Runner 0 19:55, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Q12

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

Certainly planning to, as time permits. People rush in, often with no prior experience and in good faith. ChristensenMJ (talk) 20:41, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's an opportunity to welcome new people to Wp. Those people see their fledgling effort deleted, they may never come back. That's not what Wp is about. Far better to let them see their fledgling efforts grow into the preferred format. That feels good and leads to more people participating. Thmazing (talk) 21:40, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree with that principle. That works very well when there are a few new editors/contributors, not as well when there are many who are all rushing to throw something in across a wide variety of topics/articles. ChristensenMJ (talk) 21:44, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Jeffrey R. Holland has a daughter

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

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

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

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

Another M. Christensen

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

Mike A. Christensen, a.k.a. 97.117.50.106 (talk) 02:57, 20 October 2015 (UTC) for now.[reply]

Happy Back to the Future Day, MJ Christensen! But wait... I see that you have still been making contributions to the Wiki since I last posted here (using whatever IP address I have now because it's dynamic). So why do you not even want to slightly touch this conversation with me (with even so much as a mere acknowledgment)?

Also Christensen, 97.117.46.238 (talk) 00:20, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I didn't really have a comment to share, since I didn't anticipate responding to the question. As for the IP address issues mentioned, you'd be far better served to actually establish an account, although it appears that with only a tiny little variation, there's only article with interest in and insistent with. ChristensenMJ (talk) 04:02, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Christensen MJ, if I shared my full first name with you in a friendly way like that, and we LDS tend to be known for our extra friendliness, then why would you not want to be extra friendly and let me see your real name too (even if you post it to my current IP address, which would not be too easy for someone to discover more of you through as it would be here on your own page), although they could just take one more step to get to it)? Or even if you were really paranoid about what anyone here would do with your full first name, then why would you not anticipate even replying? Why would you rather be unfriendly by just pretending like nothing was posted (although thanks for answering now)?

And what do you mean by "there's only article with interest in and insistent with"? I can't really pull a complete thought out of that. Will you try to rewrite it, please?

The other M. Christensen, 174.23.114.64 (talk) 16:59, 23 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]

You are certainly welcome to have shared your full name as you chose to, but not only does it not mean that I have to do the same, it also shouldn't be construed as somehow unfriendly, less-friendly, being any more or less LDS than anyone else, paranoid or any other form of description that could be identified. The sentence that didn't come out well was in reference to the general focus (with some relatively modest exception) on one primary article, with a good deal of insistent attention paid toward it. Thanks for your efforts to contribute to WP. ChristensenMJ (talk) 18:22, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, by "unfriendly," I meant that originally you were--and you said this yourself--not even anticipating responding to the question. Why would you rather be unfriendly by not even acknowledging the question, at least (until now, so thanks now, at least)?

And as for your name itself goes, if it's not about the fear of the potential for outsiders to somehow be able to abuse you if they knew what it was (just what the M stands for), then what is your concern with that?

And what were you trying to tell me when you said "The sentence that didn't come out well was in reference to the general focus (with some relatively modest exception) on one primary article, with a good deal of insistent attention paid toward it"? You did clean up your sentence, but you're still inconclusive as to what your attempted point is. What is it?

97.117.18.58 (talk) 02:34, 24 October 2015 (UTC). (Oh, look, my IP address changed again. Shoot.)[reply]

Did you not understand what I was saying, M.J. Christensen?

Mike, currently at IP 2600:100E:B105:46CC:F880:D86A:B0A3:4E13 (talk) 03:52, 26 October 2015 (UTC) (my home service is out right now so I have my PC tethered to my phone).[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 13:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Barranquilla Colombia Temple

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

Thank you for the message, Andrewpcx. I am not expecting any more than is required by Wikipedia guidelines, which includes having reliable sources for additions that are made. Even if I had been sitting in a meeting where such a letter was read or say a copy myself, this doesn't meet the required reference need. Among other things, this is to help WP not just be based on heresay, opinion, speculation, etc. Once the church makes an announcement and content can be sourced, it will entirely appropriate to update the article. Until that time, it is not. Thanks for your good faith efforts. ChristensenMJ (talk) 21:28, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Will create the page in Spanish also and attach the letter so that people outside Colombia can find out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewpcx (talk • contribs) 21:45, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what you man by a Spanish page, but even attaching the letter doesn't qualify as being from a published, reliable source. ChristensenMJ (talk) 21:58, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It means another language es.wikipedia.com, a stub in spanish. Made edits to correct bad info like "Columbia" to "Colombia" and metropolitan area of barranquilla, since it isn't located in barranquilla.Andrewpcx 22:07, 9 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewpcx (talk • contribs)

Yep, I get that. The Spanish stub should include a reliable source, just as much as the English version. Thanks for the updated spelling on the country. I simplified the link you included for the metro area. ChristensenMJ (talk) 22:09, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you haven't noticed my friend, i'm quite obsesive compulsive. I can't control it some times. However, news release fixed the thing. Love it when something annoying comes to an end. Gr8t! Please give it a check to guarantee that citation has been entered the right way please. Being the only person from barranquilla actually updating that page, it is quite important to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewpcx (talk • contribs) 05:31, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, good to see the news release take place. Cited references overcomes ocd in the wp world, so this is good. Thanks for your efforts. It will be great to have a temple in your area. ChristensenMJ (talk) 05:52, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Temple Department Executive Directorship

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

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

Since I was noting above that they probably hadn't even realized the inadvertent error, I just happen to look at the Newsroom information again. They have made the appropriate correction. ChristensenMJ (talk) 02:20, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Larsen

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

Thanks, Good Ol’factory. As always, appreciate the stellar contributions you make! ChristensenMJ (talk) 00:07, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Number of Young Men General Presidencies/Current Temple Status

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

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

Lima Peru Second Temple

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

Hi, Jgstokes. I hadn't seen your talk page item, but I had fixed the temple listing. Yes, as we noted last October, the use of General Authority Seventy has been used since just prior to that conference. It remains unclear in public sources as to whether there will be those called for a shorter term of service anymore or not. Thanks for all you do! ChristensenMJ (talk) 19:42, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

ChristensenMJ (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

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

Decline reason:

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

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Nothing I can see indicates this account or the IPs you use have been blocked; what do you see when you try to edit? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 13:58, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! It was showing an IP address block last night, but then later I was able to edit again, so not sure what happened! Thanks for the follow up, --jpgordon! ChristensenMJ (talk) 04:25, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Osmond Cook

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

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

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

All of the changes I made to that page were ACCURATE and in very telling fashion, you did not even challenge ANY of the changes specifically, you merely summarily undid everything I had added in good faith. You returned the page to a state of blatant inaccuracy regarding that book, and a state lacking a reference in the reference section that I had added. You should have your ability to alter pages suspended because you clearly do not seek to contribute to wikipedia, only maintain the status quo on pages that pertain to mormonism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.2.56.195 (talk) 02:39, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since it is a rule to tell people when they have been reported, here you go, you have been reported for protecting a page related to your church, merely out of personal opinion and desire to protect your church from any accurate descriptions:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User_ChristensenMJ_is_summarily_reverting_an_entire_page_merely_to_prevent_clarity_on_uncomfortable_issues_for_his_church — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.2.56.195 (talk) 02:54, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

67.2.56.195 (talk) 03:06, 27 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.2.56.195 (talk) 03:04, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, 67.2.56.195. Aside from personal attacks (talking about supposed arrogance, disgusting behavior, accusing me of personal page protection, etc.), all of which have no basis and are inappropriate in the WP environment, I can appreciate your worries that changes you made were not retained. Since you are only using an IP address, there is little history to know what your experience to date has been with Wikipedia. You couldn't be further from the truth on claims that I am only interested in personal opinion and protecting the LDS Church. If there are appropriate, sourced and npov edits to be made, then make them. However, as I noted in the edit summary, the changes you applied to the article had more of a feel of personal commentary, were unsourced and seemed to be written with a specific intent to try and imply some wrong doing, something sinister or shady behavior in the church's choice to take the original book written by Hinckley and use it later as an official publication. Therefore, I reverted the edits, with clear notification that I believe they were done in good faith. ChristensenMJ (talk) 04:40, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Your defense of me on Book of Abraham

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

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

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

I hadn't since I felt the edit summaries had provided enough reason why, but thanks for the invitation to respond. Thanks for all your efforts! ChristensenMJ (talk) 17:12, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries do not take the place of discussion on the talk page, but I appreciate that now you have responded. Thanks, Graham (talk) 22:01, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I know they don't, but wasn't sure there was much more to say, nor does everything of course end up on the talk page. Thanks so much! ChristensenMJ (talk) 22:09, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LDS articles

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

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

Perth Australia

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

Thank you for the message, JarrahTree. Yes, I understand what you are saying, particularly since I have lived in Perth. I am sorry this concerns you in this way. Although not precise in its full geographic name, this is the naming convention the church uses in its naming of temples, so it seems it would be more nonsensical to have an article name for a building (in this case) that does not exist. ChristensenMJ (talk) 23:36, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply - Perth Australia is used extensively by US based social media, and it simply shows american geographically challenged centrism bit like the Mexican Canadian border as identified by a former leader - if the church used the name, I think it needs to be clearly indentified as being in Perth Western Australia, as Perth Tasmania could the be eliminated as a chance and not implicated - the repetition of the name in the article simply was unnecessary - no need to apologise - just understand that the usage is specifically american - it is not australian usage - the pervasiveness of non australian usage in australian localities and names is something that people do not seem to understand very clearly the article title simply perpetuates it JarrahTree 05:32, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

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

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

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

Bruce D. Porter/Europe East Area Presidency

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some baklava for you!

great editing Ninja247 (talk) 20:11, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thoughts, but more so your editing efforts, Ninja247. ChristensenMJ (talk) 04:53, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BYU-Idaho Presidency Transition

Hey christensenMJ, I wanted to thank you for your work on the Clark Gilbert and Henry J. Eyring articles and make sure that you understood why I kept putting 10 April back in as the transition date. I agree that the new organization doesn't become active until 1 May, but it definitely looks like Gilbert will be operating in-place prior to that date. Check my latest revision notes on Clark Gilbert and check out the sound recording of the press conference I mentioned, embedded at the bottom of the cited press release at http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-announces-byu%E2%80%93pathway-worldwide-a-global-higher-education-organization, especially at timestamp 06:25. Let me know if you still disagree with my assertion of April 10 as the transition date (from a biographical perspective I guess). Thanks again for all your awesome contributions! TheBertag (talk) 22:10, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Bruce Hafen

Hello there~

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

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

Thank you so much.

All of the data presented is sourced and accurate.

Kindly,

Karen fuschia3388 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fuschia3388 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks so much for the message, Fuschia3388 - and for your efforts to work on the article. I would recommend leaving the citations in place, rather than removing and needing to reinsert them, and adding sourced information, as appropriate. Thanks so much! ChristensenMJ (talk) 17:34, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I will pass this on to the one who will check citations for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fuschia3388 (talk • contribs) 19:56, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am new to working with the Wiki. I was asked to make changes to the "Biography" section of Bruce C. Hafen's page. The changes that I attempted to make, including the citations and references, came from a text that was submitted by Bruce C. Hafen himself. I see that the current text is missing several citations. I would like to use the text that Bruce C. Hafen submitted as the corrected text which has all of the correct citations in place. Thank you! KLBrown (talk) 19:00, 21 March 2017 (UTC)KLBrown[reply]

Thanks for the thoughts. There are a couple issues to note here. One is to be aware of conflict of interest, not only for your own involvement, but also for Bruce Hafen. It can get tricky when individuals are trying to edit an article about themselves. That typically won't be satisfactory in the WP environment. Adding some additional publications is certainly fine. Yes, there are plenty of missing citations, or areas that could benefit from providing a citation. Those are not due to my editing. I did remove a paragraph that tried to convey notability and specifics about teachings or writings he has shared. That also circles back to conflict of interest, along with what is appropriate for an encyclopedia-like article. ChristensenMJ (talk) 21:29, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

French Polynesia

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

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

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

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

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

Your edits on the Area (LDS Church) Page

Hello, ChristensenMJ. Thanks for your recent edits correcting problems with the changes I had made on several pages I recently edited. I did have a couple of questions about your edits to the page that discusses the geographical areas of the Church. First, how are we supposed to know that the Senior President of the Seventy only assists in the domestic areas of the Church? That has not been indicated or clarified by any resource I have available to me. I know that the Church announced several years ago that areas within the US and Canada would be supervised by those in the Presidency of the Seventy, but it was my understanding that the Senior President of those seven fills any assignment he is given by the 15 apostles senior to him, including (when called upon to do so), assisting in all 25 Church areas. If that is not the case, is there a source that indicates that?

Secondly, and slightly less important, I know that the Wikipedia template for the second Manila Philippines Temple does identify the temple as you linked to it on the area page. But in the way President Monson worded the announcement of that temple during the April General Conference, he specifically stated that this temple was going to be built in "greater Manila Philippines area". And it is only here on Wikipedia that this temple is referred to as you indicated. Every other source that I have found refers to it using either President Monson's wording or as the "Greater Manila Philippines Temple". Also, I have on good authority that an official name announcement for this temple is only a matter of time.

I wanted to bring all of this to your attention to get some clarification from you on these points. Thanks for all your great work. Hope you know how much I respect you for that. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 03:22, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Jgstokes. Nice to see you back! On your questions or comments: 1) The primary issue on the Area page for me was that it was simply too much detail, and some that was not needed. Yes, it was approximately 2004 when the "domestic" area presidencies were done away with and turned to the Presidency of the Seventy. In approximately 2009, when Ronald A. Rasband became the senior president, is when the "assist in all areas" came into the picture. All that aside - I just don't think firstly that it needs to be attempted to detail and secondly, the part about the 15 senior leaders giving him assignments is not only self-evident, it's not exclusive just to him. All of the seventy, and for that matter, all church members are in that situation - although obviously not as directly as other general authorities or general officers.

Next, on the second temple in the Manila area, I see this as an extremely minor issue. Since the template existed, I was just fixing the link so it didn't have the error on the Area page. It's of course also self-evident that an official name announcement will be forthcoming. This is similar to the second temple that was announced for Lima the year before. The "greater area" or just the "area" are not that different and I think it would be well not to try and put too much stock in a descriptive word given at the time of announcement, as if it had more significance than it likely really does. Since I am the one who created the temple's template in April, that is similar reasoning to the more broad, generic name used at the time for establishing it. It is just a placeholder until such time as an official name is announced. I don't see anything of real significance in this issue.

Thanks again for your comments and questions. Again, good to see you back! ChristensenMJ (talk) 14:10, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Provo MTC part of BYU-Utah, right?

Hey, Brother Christensen,

Have you been through an official tour of the new Provo MTC buildings yet (well, I guess they're giving tours of the whole campus)? If not, then I hope you do not miss out. I'll be going soon. It goes through the 19th this month (08) for us regular Joes. And if they let us (unlike at temples), we should shoot plenty of video and photos. It'll be interesting to see how much it has changed inside since I was there in the system over 2 decades ago.

Have you been through their system, officially? Did you know that it's run by BYU-Utah? But does that make it part of BYU, then? Remember that the buildings are labeled as "M18," etc. ("m" for "missionary," someone of some prominence told me), meaning that they are included in BYU's system of building nomenclature? So even though I was thinking about this a while back, it's these new buildings that have triggered me into asking you this. Then, kind brother, as someone who seems to have had a lot of experience helping to construct and correct encyclopedia entries about our church (by "our," I mean that I assume you're part of the group of us), would you please do us the kind favor of adding all of the Provo MTC buildings to the list of Brigham Young University buildings?

Grateful to you if so, IP editor currently known as 97.117.38.233 (talk) 05:06, 11 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]

To the person who wrote this comment above, I am not ChristensenMJ, but I am a Church member and Wikipedian with no small familiarity with the BYU-Provo campus. As such, I can tell you that the MTC sits on the campus of the university, although it is operated under the direction of the general Church leadership rather than by the university. I had the opportunity to serve for six years as a temple worker at the Mount Timpanogos Utah Temple, and within that time, when the Provo Utah Temple was closed, our temple would get the missionaries that came from the MTC campus. It was an awesome experience. I am grateful for the opportunity that is afforded us as regular Church members to now tour this beautifully renovated part of that campus. Hope that helps. --Jgstokes (talk) 23:13, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The MTC is not part of BYU (recognizing there is no such thing as BYU-Utah, though I suspect this conversation has been had before). There is a partnership that includes sharing of some services and employment circumstances that facilitates opportunities for BYU students to work at the MTC. The MTC sits adjacent to, but not on, BYU's campus. As Jgstokes has noted, the church's Missionary Department has responsibility for running it. It should not be included in a listing of BYU's buildings. ChristensenMJ (talk) 04:50, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, JG Stokes, for your reply here on MJ's page. How were you made aware that my request was here? Thank you too, MJ, for your reply. Okay, so if the MTC there is part of the BYU-Utah campus (I know, MJ, it's not BYU-Utah officially, but neither is it "BYU-Provo" officially; though "BYU-Utah" is a more accurate comparison against the other BYUs because the others are named by their states instead of their cities), then just by the merit that they sit on that ground and is maintained by them and has the "M___" buildings in their nomenclature, then regardless of who directs them ultimately why shouldn't they be listed as campus buildings because of these merits alone?

And MJ, have you been through the new tour yet?

And JG, have you?

Another Christensen: Mike, temporarily known by the IP address of 174.23.172.242 (talk) 05:27, 13 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Hello again to you. Thank you for your excellent questions here that have led to answers done by both ChristensenMJ and myself. In regards to your question about how I knew you had asked the question you directed to him, over a period of many years, he and I have collaborated on many Wikipedia projects. We have come to respect each other a lot as a result of that collaboration. Because we do have that respect for each other, I have put this talk page of his on my watchlist. And, as it happened, I had been checking on other changes from the last time I accessed Wikipedia (which was several months ago) when this talk page moved to the top of my watchlist. That gave me the opportunity to see your question and provide the answer to it, even though it had been directed to him. I hope that information helps you. I did want to note one other thing, though. Just as he and I have become good friends who have a respect for each other's work, you too will likely have opportunities to develop that kind of solid working relationship with other editors that will, by virtue of that relationship, become good friends of yours as well. Hope that adequately answers your question. Thanks for asking it. For my part, I hope that you will join the rest of us that regularly contribute to a variety of pages here on Wikipedia. If you ever have a question of any kind relating to your efforts to edit Wikipedia, feel free to ask either ChristensenMJ or myself about those questions. I wish you all the best as you take the opportunity to contribute to any of Wikipedia's articles that may be of interest to you. Thanks again. --Jgstokes (talk) 01:39, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The rotating IP's are pretending to be nice, but they belong to User:Stylized as "stylized" currently; formerly "stylizeD", just an FYI. Sro23 (talk) 02:06, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note, Sro23. Yes, I know - I recognized the style/approach in the first message left above. I referred to that in part with mentioning the conversation about the institution's name having been had before. I have had a wide range of interactions with this user - with other "rotating IPs" and when user names similar to mine got blocked through their use by this individual. ChristensenMJ (talk) 03:59, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, JG, and thanks for your compliment of my questions! I appreciate your willingness to work with me in collaboration as long as I keep trying to do it the right way, which I will, which is why I wouldn't go to the efforts of shooting photos of and writing up descriptions of the Provo MTC buildings to include them on the list of BYU buildings even though they are on BYU land and supposed by at least some people as being part of the campus, without a good consensus for it.

But there is one question that I did ask both you and MJ about why, just because the MTC is directed by the church in general, rather than BYU specifically, even though it is on BYU-specific property as some say, and is maintained by BYU, that its buildings don't count, in your and MJ's eyes, as BYU buildings. So when questions like that don't get answered very well, it's hard to feel like people are collaborating with me.

Also, JG, I appreciate that you invited me to ask you and MJ any questions about Wikipedia efforts and I feel like maybe you are genuine in your willingness to at least try to answer, but I have the feeling that MJ may not be as willing to do so, even as we type on his page. And he's not even willing to entertain simple side questions like if he took the MTC tour to see both the new and some of the old buildings. He may want us to continue our discussions without filling up his page, so maybe we should continue elsewhere, and I'm fine with moving if he wants us to or if you think we should. What do you both think about that?

JG, have you been through the MTC tour yet?

Mike, and I'm the IP address 174.23.178.51 (talk) 07:54, 17 August 2017 (UTC) for now, and I can never choose my set of numbers.[reply]

Uh, not just pretending to be nice; actually being nice. Just because you think I'm "Stylized" doesn't mean any nice-sounding phrasing coming from me isn't actual niceness.

Maybe you guys forgot what dynamic IP addresses are and how they work. A lot of people have them, actually. You two down here and JG might even have them. Did you guys order static-IP service? If not, then you're almost guaranteed to have dynamic addressing. That means your address will periodically change without your having to do anything to make it happen. And as you should have been able to see, I'm even announcing that right now my address is such-and-such because I'm aware that it changes on its on from time to time.

So just like right now, I'm 174.23.178.51 (talk) 07:54, 17 August 2017 (UTC), but it could change on me at any time. So there's no point in bringing that up as if it were some sort of problem. It just is what it is.[reply]

This is not about understanding more about how IP services work. Just as was done in early 2016 during interactions, it's more than appropriate to actually establish an account. That entirely removes this as the changing IP addresses should be a non-issue. Also as before, simply not answering questions that may be posed that are not related to good faith WP editing has no impact on sincere willingness for all to engage & contribute to WP productively. Nor is it something that needs to be debated. Back on the question of the MTC/BYU relationship - any maintenance of the MTC done by BYU personnel is more the practical side of efficiency. It doesn't make sense for the MTC to develop it's own work force in some areas, which would duplicate what BYU already has/needs. So services are shared in that regard. It still doesn't mean the MTC is part of the BYU campus. The MTC is primarily owned by the church and is directed by its missionary department. BYU has no operational influence over the MTC. ChristensenMJ (talk) 15:22, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While acknowledging that this page is not directly related to my work here on Wikipedia (except where I have needed to ask a question of ChristensenMJ related to his work on any articles here), at the same time, I would like to note that I am in agreement on the point that you, as the user with a rotating IP address, would be much better served to create an official account. And I know what I'm talking about because I have been in your shoes before. I once edited for a while under an IP address. But when invited to do so, I created an account. And by doing so, my edits gained a degree of credibility and respect that I had not seen before by the use of an IP address. You can certainly go on editing with a rotating IP address, but the relevant issue here is your credibility and the fact that your edits would be taken much more seriously with an account than they would by not having one. I fully believe that you could be a great asset to Wikipedia if you established an account and went from just posting comments on a user page to valuable contributions to articles that interest you. That too increases your credibility. As one who has edited Wikipedia with an account for 10 years, that would be my advice to you. Whether you take it or leave it is entirely up to you. But I know it worked in my case, and I likewise hope you will find doing so works for you as well. --Jgstokes (talk) 23:30, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Kelly

I have noticed that their is a ongoing disagreement regarding the issue on Kate Kelly's member status with the Mormon church and multiple edits resulting from this even before I got involved and have requested assistance/moderation from Wikipedia in regards to the Kate Kelly and the appropriate interpretation in this case in hopes that this issue will get resolved. LXX3 (talk) 14:26, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Sounds good to me, LXX3. As you noted, I just knew this has been discussed a number of times, so I was keeping it more in line with what has been consensus to this point. Thanks for your efforts and interests in WP. I do think that it should remain in the state that it's been, pending that resolution, but I won't revert your good faith edit. ChristensenMJ (talk) 14:35, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would also note however that it does not state she is still a member of the LDS Church. As I noted on the talk page, there is a distinction between being Mormon and being a member of the LDS Church. ChristensenMJ (talk) 14:38, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That may technically be true the two words having a different meaning. I have however noticed a lot of people don't see a difference in the term Mormon and LDS which can be seen from the number of edits dating back to it looks like 2014. I find that it may confuse some into thinking she is still associated with the LDS church.

I also noticed a reference and citation mentioning something to the extent that she no longer claims affiliation with any religion. I haven't had time to look up the citation so I am not sure if it is valid or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LXX3 (talk • contribs) 15:12, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know I am not the person to whom this question has been directed, but FWIW, I wanted to note that it takes more than just a "valid citation". Wikipedia is not so much concerned about truth as it is about verifiability. Any added information may subsequently be deleted unless and until it is corroborated and supported by a reliable source. I thought that might be useful to you. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 05:09, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help in catching my mistakes

Hey, ChristensenMJ! Hope you are well, my friend! I wanted to stop by and thank you for helping to catch my unintentional errors (such as getting Tad R. Callister and Stephen W. Owen confused; long day) and for simplifying the edits I made as a result of the Church Board membership expanding. As I may have mentioned, as a young man, I spent a lot of time poring over old editions of the General Conference Ensigns. So I know that it was common for most of Spencer W. Kimball's tenure and perhaps part of the tenure of Ezra Taft Benson for the Church members to have a chance to sustain the Church Board of Education, which was then comprised of all First Presidency members, around half of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, a couple of members of the Presidency of the Seventy, the Presiding Bishop and the Relief Society General President. Since I have had to be reliant at least for the last 10 years I have been a Wikipedia editor on whatever board membership lists the Church has put out, I have been grateful to have had that list easier to find in the last 3-5 years or so. I was glad to hear that the Church was adding two members of the Quorum of the Twelve to the Board, has added Elder Gong (who, as I may have also mentioned, left me impressed after an interaction with him at the stake conference of my parents' ward), once again included the Presiding Bishop, and has extended membership to the Young Men General President along with retaining Elder Hallstrom, who by all reports has been instrumental in filling that assignment during his tenure in the Presidency of the Seventy. The Church has done some very impressive things relating to Church education, both in expanding the outreach of secondary education and getting a feel for the potential effectiveness of the wonderful new curriculum we will get to enjoy starting next year. I am sure that with these changes to the Board, the Church will continue to move forward and progress very well. Anyways, just wanted to post with my thanks. I appreciate you and hope you are well. --Jgstokes (talk) 02:05, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Jgstokes. Thanks for the note. Not a worry. Thanks for the updates you have made today. ChristensenMJ (talk) 02:18, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting your input on the LDS General Authorities page

Hello, ChristensenMJ! Hope you are well. I am posting this message on your talk page to request your feedback on two topics I just started on the talk page for the LDS General Authorities. I have felt if I can get some kind of consensus on these matters, it would be in the best interests of the page going forward. Thanks, as always, for all your great work. I look forward to your thoughts on these questions.

Ted E. Brewerton nominated for deletion

Hello. It would appear that the powers that be are at it again, trying to ensure the deletion of Ted E. Brewerton. I wanted to make sure you knew. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk)

Asuncion Paraguay Temple Renovation Closure

Hello. Hope you are well. While I applaud your good faith efforts to ensure accuracy regarding the current status of temples, I happen to know that the Asuncion Paraguay Temple is closed. As I may have mentioned earlier, I have joined the community of LDS bloggers, and my focus has been on current and future temple-related events. I also have contacts who have roles in sharing temple-related news. As such, I have categorically confirmed that the Asuncion Paraguay Temple has closed for renovation. When the original closure was announced, prior to updating their temple section, the Church's main website set October 29 as the closure date. That time has come and gone, and in the interim, the Church has updated their temple section, but there has been some information that has not yet been updated. Because of the contacts I have, I can state with absolute certainty that Asuncion is closed. I hope that my word on the subject is not problematic for you to accept. With how much time I have put into studying and reporting on such developments for my blog, I know what I'm talking about. Thanks for your ongoing efforts to ensure accuracy. I appreciate you! --Jgstokes (talk) 22:36, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For a long-time editor who has spent a lot of time and energy over the years talking about the importance of verifiability and referenced sources in WP articles, this excessive effort to convince others that all the independent contacts and research done make it OK to provide updates that aren't that significant and are not consistent with existing sources (such as the original Mormon Newsroom release that states November as the closing month) is interesting at best. This is really a non-issue, even with the strange wording of applauding efforts that have been made, which seeks to minimize the edits. Since it's obviously November, the temple was stated to be closing sometime this month, so as I noted, this is a non-issue and completely insignificant issue. If it's wrong as shown now, it will change within days. If it's right as shown now, it's been a matter of days. No significance that provides a great impact. ChristensenMJ (talk) 04:34, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My loyalty to the principles of verifiability and referenced sources is as strong as it ever has been. But just as I have deferred to you in matters within your expertise, I have become somewhat respected as one who knows or can find out information about such matters. And if you want to talk specifics about the inaccuracy of the Church's redone temple website, the only closing dates listed on the page for Asuncion are for 2018, which directly contradicts the Church's statement that the temple would close in November. I hope you know I meant no offense, and I do applaud your good-faith efforts to ensure accuracy. That said, if it is such a non-issue, I fail to see why you appeared to take offense when I certainly intended none. You have qualifications and experiences that put you in the know about certain aspects related to the Church, and that is why I have tried to defer to you in such matters, whether or not what you have said about them is verified by reliable sources. My only intent in correcting your edit and notifying you about it is to set the background of why I know that Asuncion has closed. That said, I still have the utmost respect for the work you do, and your ongoing good-faith efforts, and I hope that this difference of opinion, which may, as you say, be a non-issue, will not negatively impact our ability to work well together to ensure that Wikipedia policies are followed. Best wishes. --Jgstokes (talk) 05:36, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I have noted in prior discussions, I am not easily offended. So, not only was I not offended, it's not a concern, nor would it have any impact toward on-going dealings and efforts we might have. I just thought the expressions were far stronger than made any sense for the minor issue that was being addressed. My edit wasn't corrected and it was fine to update - what I was actually referring to was the edit summary omitted the Tokyo temple, but did state the Ascuncion - so it was a comment, not a change to what had been there, or something that needed correcting. Recognizing that often when asked about information related to the church, I have noted that perhaps a formal announcement of changes may come later, or maybe not at all, but that I have typically pointed out - no ref exists. I tend to think it's always easier, and keeps things on safer ground, just to wait for an actual ref, rather than moving forward on what may be known or not known - particularly when it's so recent. If this had gone for a lengthy period of time with the church's website not being appropriately updated, then it would make sense to me to change it. ChristensenMJ (talk) 22:23, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that clarification. Now that I understand more about where you were coming from, I apologize for any misunderstanding. Since posting my original response to you above, I have spent the better part of the last month and a half dealing with the cold/flu season which has hit the county in which I live with such ferocity. This necessitated my absence from Wikipedia from the time I posted my above comment until just a few days ago. I thank you for your kind reaction to my explanation, and want you to know that I respect your work as an editor to such a degree and extent that any concerns you express about my work will not offend me either. Keep up the great work. --Jgstokes (talk) 00:53, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, ChristensenMJ. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence cited for Russell M. Nelson's current status as Acting Church President

Hello, ChristensenMJ. Hope you are well. Just wanted to make you aware personally that I have cited a source here to verify my previous assertion (which you reverted) that the death of Thomas S. Monson left Russell M. Nelson as the acting Church president, per a statement from Harold B. Lee. Whether that is actually included or not in the article does not matter much to me, as we will know within the next 48 hours if, when, and how the First Presidency has been reorganized. Thanks for your continued diligence and ongoing attention to details on articles about the LDS Church. All the best. --Jgstokes (talk) 00:48, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jgstokes, first - nice to see you back. I have wondered a number of times how you have been doing/feeling. As always, thanks for all your ongoing efforts. No worries about the Lee reference in the note. I just think it's much cleaner to stick with the more "traditional" notation as Nelson being the quorum president. You would likely never/not see anything by the church that would identify him as the acting church president, but rather as quorum president - as he was identified during Monson's funeral. That was my primary thought in updating the note's wording you had included. Thanks again! ChristensenMJ (talk) 15:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that response to my comment. It has been a rough year. I agree that, aside from this quote from Lee, we have not had much evidence supporting the notion that the death of the previous Church president leaves the next senior apostle as the acting Church president. AFAIK, no senior apostle has ever formally been presented to the Church as such. For that reason, I have no problem with the adjustments you made to the note. In just over 11 hours, we will know more about if, when, and how the First Presidency has been reconstituted (although it would very much surprise me to find that has not been the case), and any subsequent changes that may be needed can then be made. As always, thanks for your continued great work and kind responses to my messages here. --Jgstokes (talk) 05:22, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your work

I just wanted to drop a note to thank you for all the work you've done on LDS articles, especially lately with all the edits hitting because of the change of president. I appreciate how you keep Wikipedia a great source of information. Best, Bahooka (talk) 17:27, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kindness and taking a moment to share the thoughts, Bahooka. I am equally appreciative of your own wonderful and productive efforts on the related articles. Thanks for all you do! ChristensenMJ (talk) 18:12, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for Russell M. Nelson

On 21 January 2018, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Russell M. Nelson, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Spencer^T♦C 20:05, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Joseph Bishop for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Joseph Bishop 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/Joseph Bishop 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article.

God in Mormonism

Would you mind taking a look at the recent additions by DeusImperator at God in Mormonism? As I've explained on the talk page, I don't think the sources actually support the added text, but I could use a third opinion in case I'm wrong. Thanks. --FyzixFighter (talk) 03:56, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, FyzixFighter. I see that your talk page assertions have at least been acknowledged, with content removed - perhaps even if just for now. Thanks for your efforts. ChristensenMJ (talk) 05:08, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AfD for Ulisses Soares

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ulisses Soares--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:13, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

General Authorities Subpage

Hello, ChristensenMJ. Hope you are well. I wanted to stop by and personally thank you for your continued diligence in fine-tuning content I have attempted to add. As time, circumstances, and my health have allowed me to do so, I have been working on the subpage for this year's General Authority assignment changes. It is going relatively smoothly, with one exception. I am sure that you have seen by now that I have changed the names of the two columns of the general authority seventies table to "Assignments" and "Field of labor". For those that have one assignment (which has applied to the first two GA Seventies on the list), that change has not been a problem. But for those with multiple assignments (such as Wilford W. Andersen}, there is an issue with the alignment of multiple assignments. The easiest way to get around that issue (in my opinion) would be to split each of the two relevant cells each in half, but every attempt I have made to do so has resulted in failure. I had requested your input (via the list of general authorities talk page) on how to get around this issue, but did not hear back (AFAIK). So I thought I would reach out to you about this directly. Do you know how I can get around this issue? Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 02:30, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the work you have put in on the subpage. I don't know if it might work to use the "break" command to create a second line when needed. This would probably be cleaner than trying to split each cell where this is needed. Also, I can see that with the Seventy there are still a number of updates to be made, since there is still a mix of Area vs. assignment in the columns. I am not totally sure I know yet which column is intended for which set of information. I would suggest something a little more "mainstream" in the column headings - rather than "field of labor." If we just keep it simple and maybe a little easier to understand for general readers, you might consider just using assignment and area - or even area/department. ChristensenMJ (talk) 03:10, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, ChristensenMJ. I apologize that it took me until today to see and reply to your comment on my query. I have had a few more health issues to deal with in the two weeks since I asked for your input. I am well enough, just needed to take a step back to deal with things. In terms of your suggestion, I am aware of the command you mentioned above (hope you don't mind my putting it in quotes; leaving it as is just introduced an unnecessary space in your reply), but ran into a real problem with making sure the assignments aligned. In answer to your question, I had been busy enough working on the problems I mentioned with Andersen's listing that I had not gotten any further than his name. I began alphabetically, so I only was able to do Aidukaitis and Alonso in the new format before I ran into the problems with Andersen, and didn't get far resolving those issues, so I am still in the very preliminary stages. I also wanted to clarify this for you: I intend for the first column to list the positions each GA Seventy holds (for example: President or Executive Director) and for the second column to identify the area, mission, department, etc. within which such service is rendered (which for Aidukaitis would be the Brazil Area, and for, say, Larry Y. Wilson, would be Temple Department). I know it gets a bit confusing since I am still in the preliminary stages of that process. Since I asked for your input on my question, I think I may have found a potential solution, which I will be trying shortly. And your point is well taken. I should make it simpler for others to read. I will get right on that. In the meantime, I will attempt my solution, and if it doesn't work, I will again ask for your feedback and (possibly) your assistance. Thanks, and sorry again about the delay in getting back to you and the confusion I unintentionally caused. Hope you are well. --Jgstokes (talk) 06:37, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Totally not a worry on the timing. Glad that you are well and were able to step back a bit to address the health issues. Thanks for your continuing work. ChristensenMJ (talk) 21:27, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. After taking the last couple of weeks to deal with additional health issues (it has been quite a year for those problems), I just wanted to follow up and let you know that I tried a couple of different solutions for the problems I referenced here. I tried the break command, but that presented problems when the different assignments in the two columns did not align at all. It got to be a bit too messy. So instead of splitting the existing two columns, I eliminated one of the two columns, and now have the assignments and the relevant assignment areas in a single column. If there is any other way to make it more neat with two columns, I am not sure what that would be. I would be satisfied with the current layout if it works for you. Also, I wanted to mention that I have taken a few opportunities to scan the general authority bios on the Church website, and as far as I can tell, there is not any new information. And a final thought I had is that, with the hymnbook and children's songbook being redone, the Church quoted several leaders about that process, and particularly identified several individuals who are assigned to that project. Should those assignments be listed on the original GA page and the subpage for the August 2018 assignments? Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 23:47, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your weird stubborn insistence on not listing the Huntsman children

Where did that come from? Billionaires' children are commonly listed in their wikipedia pages. Although these billionaire children have been more or less mentioned in news, most of them are not notable. And so are the Huntsman children. So I'm baffled by your weird obsession with not listing the Huntsman children. Slovebz (talk) 09:40, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note, Slovebz. I had primarily been going on prior experience where others had shared this view with me - and consistent with part of what you have identified - that they are generally not notable and don't add any particular value to the article. This includes some of the ideas stated in WP:BLPNAME. I would also note that your expressions about any weird stubborn obsession or insistence on my part not to list them is not any different than your weird stubborn obsession or insistence to have them listed. I am going to at least update the part that you reverted without paying attention, which is simply to note the number of descendants at the time of his death. That can be a hard thing to validate initially and then to keep current. Thanks for your ongoing efforts in WP. ChristensenMJ (talk) 05:30, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BoM

Hello, the text I added to the intro was from the article. Virtuus (talk) 07:05, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Help with Template on Concepcion Chile Temple

Would you be willing to help me with the citation on the Concepcion Chile Temple? I am trying to cite a source and it is giving me an error. I just don't know enough about updating a template to get it right. Thanks! -Glennfcowan (talk) 17:40, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Glennfcowan. My guess is the nature of this data field, which is calculated information, is not set up to accommodate a reference. I moved it to another "text" field. Thanks for your ongoing efforts! ChristensenMJ (talk) 02:58, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for cleaning that up! Glennfcowan (talk) 16:18, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:LDS70GA

I see you reverted my edit. So I wanted to come here to discuss. So your claim is if an article has been deleted, that it should not be linked at all? Why then do we still link:

And the following are at AFD now, are we going to remove them too?

Also what about the 9 more that are just redirects to mere mentions of the people in the List of general authorities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints list? Are we removing them too? Does that not then defeat the purpose of the template? -- Amanda (aka DQ) 02:06, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message, Amanda (aka DQ). I actually had the thought about "cleaning up" the template along the exact lines of what you are saying when I was on the article page earlier. If you'll note the edit history, there has been a specific IP user(s) that has continued to put Funk back in. That is all I was addressing in my revert - both of earlier edits and yours. It's not an isolated problem, as you note, and it has been heightened by a number of recent AFDs. So, in short, I don't disagree that it needs to be cleaned up, my focus was on the specific issue. Don't know if that helps, but that's at least where I was coming from. ChristensenMJ (talk) 02:11, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I find with that cleanup though, the template would not be worth what it is, and it would be better to either keep everything red linked regardless, or delete the template and put a link to the one article in the see also section. I guess i'm looking for consistency. And then there is even the question of the remainder of the red links. I also don't really see any policy that backs up either side yet. Honestly, I see it more as an all or nothing approach either keep all the links or submit the template for deletion. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 00:11, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Amanda (aka DQ). I would be completely in favor of getting rid of all the redlinks. As I noted, it was purely a matter of not having/taking time to do it and responding to a specific return of an obvious redlink. ChristensenMJ (talk) 00:13, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald A. Rasband

Why do you keep deleting my edit to this page? He received his second anointing in Frankfurt in 2003, how is that not pertinent information that should be in his Wikipedia page? Deroque49 (talk) 14:10, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message, Deroque49. As a new user, please familiarize yourself with what constitutes a reliable source. The information you have used as a citation does not. That is why I have deleted it, and will again. Please take this to the talk page of his article if you have further questions. Thanks for your efforts to strengthen WP. ChristensenMJ (talk) 14:49, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What about my source makes it an unreliable source? Please cite specifics from the reliable source article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deroque49 (talk • contribs) 12:25, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's your opportunity to go in and understand what makes a reliable source or what does not. Using WP:VERIFY might also be of assistance, including its very opening paragraph. Of course you'll also have seen that another editor addressed the same issue on the recurring addition on the second anointing article. ChristensenMJ (talk) 14:27, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Second anointing

Why would you leave the sentence about Tom Phillips claiming to receive the second anointing (the only source for this information being his Mormon Stories Podcast interview), but then take out the sentence about Hans Mattson (the only source also being his Mormon Stories Podcast interview)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deroque49 (talk • contribs) 12:21, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't focus anyplace else on the article, just on the addition you included, which I was familiar with. ChristensenMJ (talk) 14:28, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kinshasa DRC Temple

I just added (or rather re-added) the Kinshasa Democratic Republic of the Congo Temple article now that the dedication has been scheduled. I know you like to edit temple articles and figured you would like to know that this article has been added. Do you mind taking a look to see if you can add anything? Glennfcowan (talk) 20:58, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	In recognition of all the solid content you add. All the articles you improve. All the work that you do. thank you. E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:25, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kindness and your own efforts, E.M.Gregory! ChristensenMJ (talk) 20:31, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Use of "LDS Church"

I saw the Style Guide but it is at variance with the Style Guide on lds.org:

In the first reference, the full name of the Church is preferred: "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."

When a shortened reference is needed, the terms "the Church" or the "Church of Jesus Christ" are encouraged. The "restored Church of Jesus Christ" is also accurate and encouraged.

While the term "Mormon Church" has long been publicly applied to the Church as a nickname, it is not an authorized title, and the Church discourages its use. Thus, please avoid using the abbreviation "LDS" or the nickname "Mormon" as substitutes for the name of the Church, as in "Mormon Church," "LDS Church," or "Church of the Latter-day Saints."

I would like to appeal your decision. Thomas.merrill (talk) 00:05, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Thomas.merrill, Wikipedia doesn't follow the styleguides of individual organizations, but instead follows what "secondary" sources do. We have actually discussed updating our styleguide at the following link: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Latter_Day_Saints#changes_based_on_recent_style_request_from_LDS_Church? but decided that we need to wait and see if and how secondary sources (for example major newspapers) update their own styleguides. ~Awilley (talk) 00:40, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saddened to hear that Wikipedia has a policy of allowing non experts to be the arbiters of fact. Consequently, WP is allowing derisive dog whistles in its publication. Thank you Thomas.merrill (talk) 10:20, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thoughts, Thomas.merrill. This is unrelated to "allowing non-experts to be arbiters of fact." As you are surely aware, there are a wide variety of principles upon WP is governed, with the intent to have articles be based on fact, verifiabiltiy, consensus, neutral points of view, commonly used names and terms, lack of censorship, credibility, not written one way or another because someone doesn't like it, and a myriad of others. As noted earlier by Awilley, you can certainly feel free to participate in an existing discussion here. Thanks for your willing efforts to contribute to WP. ChristensenMJ (talk) 15:59, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ChristensenMJ, I see you undid my revision as well, which merely attempted to lessen the impact of the hatred and bigotry endorsed by Wikipedia. Thomas.merrill said it quite well. It is very good to know that Wikipedia is both committed to the suppression of truth and complicit in the murder of its champions. TheOtter (talk) 20:25, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thoughts as well, TheOtter. It may be obvious, but I certainly don't agree with the assessment of "hatred and bigotry" being endorsed by WP. I know you don't need, or perhaps even care to hear, my opinion, but even in this note when there's a discussion about things like "murder" addresses, it doesn't help in addressing concerns. I am another that thinks comments trying to equate race and use of words deemed by society to be inappropriate and vile are at all comparable to the impact of how the church is addressed or referred to. ChristensenMJ (talk) 21:12, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I sincerely appreciate the response, ChristensenMJ. However, I don't think you understand the import of this situation. The term "Mormons" was invented by people who couldn't get together a large enough mob to rape, pillage, and murder the "Saints" or the "Christians". The Book of Mormon specifically states that terms like "Mormons" mean "those who reject Jesus Christ", and terms like "LDS Church" mean "the Church of Satan". I would think that, upon learning this, any decent person would think said terms to be both "inappropriate and vile". Remember, every "word deemed by society to be inappropriate" was once considered appropriate. It was only through the efforts of their detractors that society began to realize how harmful those words can be.

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, ChristensenMJ. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kinshasa DRC Temple

You may be interested to know that Kinshasa Democratic Republic of the Congo Temple is up for deletion review. You made a few changes after I re-created the page. It is my fault partially that the article is in a deletion review since I dragged my feet on adding 3rd party sources after someone tagged the article. I have added a few new sources and a new paragraph, but if you have anything to add, I would appreciate it. Glennfcowan (talk) 04:44, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LDS Temple/Brasilia Brasil Temple listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect LDS Temple/Brasilia Brasil Temple. Since you had some involvement with the LDS Temple/Brasilia Brasil Temple redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Stefan2 (talk) 21:50, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion on Temple Graph

I have recreated the graph of temples over time that is on the main temple list page. It was last updated in 2010, so it definitely needed. I will hang on to the data so it can be updated easier in the future. Do you mind leaving feedback on the chart? It is here. I am good with charts and data, but not with design, so any comments would be helpful. Feel free to invite anyone else you think would like to comment. Thanks! Glennfcowan (talk) 02:46, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Strobel edits.

Hello,

I am trying to sort out why revisions done to Dr. Strobels page are continually removed? The information entered is factually correct, the formatting is also allowed. thank you in advance. DraghiKW (talk) 19:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your question. As noted in the edit summaries, there are clearly conflicts of interest and at least the potential that someone is a paid employee/WP contributor, so whether factual or not, it calls into question the editing, so it seems better to just leave it as shown. An individual about whom the article is written doesn't get to state or determine how he/she would like it to read. ChristensenMJ (talk) 03:23, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If unsourced material is removed because it is unsourced, please don't restore it without a source

I don't know if it as correct or not, but policy is clear, "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source.". Thanks. Doug Weller talk 11:24, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CHD

Thanks for all your edits on the various Church wiki pages. I really appreciate your help. Quick question, do you have a reference or anything where they use CHD as a shortened name for the Church History Department? I have not seen that used before. Fullrabb (talk) 13:06, 7 August 2019 (UTC)Fullrabb[reply]

Hi, Fullrabb! Thanks for the note, as well as your efforts on various articles. Establishing and using a short name was done more just as typical mos/style-type usage. I have not looked for a reference that would make it a "formal" use. Hope that helps some! ChristensenMJ (talk) 15:01, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Removing Contributions to LDS

The Denver Temple wiki is completely uncited. It also contains the claim that the LDS church agreed not to light the temple up at night out of respect for the community. Again, without a citation. I live next to the temple and walk by it every night. It is light up all night, every night. I have re-added a line reflecting this fact with a citation to a picture showing the temple lit up at night. I will continue to add in this line every time it is removed.

Redwagon76 (talk) 14:15, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I added a photo showing the temple lit up at night as a source and you removed it. The claim on the Denver Temple wiki is completely false. If you add a citation showing that the temple is not lit up at night, I will stop editing the article to remove or address this fact.

Redwagon76 (talk) 14:27, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rodney H. Brady, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Eagle Scout (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) 07:45, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

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) 00:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

November 2019

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Terryl Givens. I couldn't have made it any clearer before. Doug Weller talk 06:27, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're right - particularly given the nature of the tiny issue at hand and a user who just reverted a whole slew of things and had an edit summary that made no sense - that it's a strange policy.....and be measured in the approach. Thanks for all you do. ChristensenMJ (talk) 11:42, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 1

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bonnie H. Cordon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Laurel (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 9

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Peter M. Johnson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page KSL (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:35, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Church of jesus christ of latter day saints missions

Can you go through missions and make sure they all appear once as wheñ i did they appeared twice when i edited it Dgmitchell91 (talk) 22:15, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your efforts, Dgmitchell91. I am not totally sure I understand what you're asking, but when there is a piped link to a city or country, they will appear to show up twice, but the just the link shows. Feel free to help me understand a bit more what you are asking about. Thanks so much! ChristensenMJ (talk) 22:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I want you to check if any changes need made to mission list of the church of jesus christ of latter day saints as the limatambo area of peru is marked red and a couple of others with merged missions are marked black Dgmitchell91 (talk) 22:25, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted in your other message, I already fixed the Limatambo area by linking it to the district's article....in a very quick look, I think the only things that are black include the word "mission" and the directional things, such as north, south, east, or west. If they are others that are still black, it's likely that there's not an associated article, so this is preferred to creating a redlink. ChristensenMJ (talk) 22:29, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Church of jesus christ of latter day saints mission list

Can you go through and fully check and update if neccesary the missions list including limatambo peru so its name goes blue like every other mission expect central Dgmitchell91 (talk) 22:18, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it already does, based on an update I made earlier.... ChristensenMJ (talk) 22:22, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ensign Peak Advisors et al

Could you take a look and see if you can improve on the Ensign Peak Advisors article. Fullrabb (talk) 02:33, 16 February 2020 (UTC)Fullrabb[reply]

I cannot tell if you support my contributions or find them annoying. I appreciate your edits of my work. My primary goal is to provide more references and higher quality references for articles and remove some of the chaff. Let me know what think. Fullrabb (talk) 20:41, 18 February 2020 (UTC)Fullrabb[reply]

Thanks so much, Fullrabb. Darn - sorry to have you feel like I feel they are annoying, that is not my intent....With that in mind, however, I do think one of the things overall that editors/contributors (collectively, not specifically) need to be careful of is what I would perhaps describe as "trying too hard" to have things be substantive/relevant/significant. As you are likely aware, not all that long ago WP went through a period of time where virtually all the articles about general authority seventies (and many of the general officers) were deleted because they didn't meet WP guidelines - in the view of some. It really seems the main ones that "survived" that cleansing were simply ones that weren't as known, or found in the process. Several editors felt that being a general authority no longer "automatically" denoted notability, in the WP sense. As you have seen from some of my edits - I think if editors try too hard and attribute more than is really there (such as David Beck helping to implement a missionary age change), it potentially opens up more challenges than it helps resolve or value it adds. Thanks for all your efforts and your enthusiasm to work on these articles. ChristensenMJ (talk) 21:35, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. I'm just trying to help. My focus has been adding sources to many of the Church-related articles (as well as some clean-up). I appreciate all of your hard work. I can see it far and wide. Keep up the good work! Fullrabb (talk) 01:23, 27 February 2020 (UTC)Fullrabb[reply]

You are absolutely helping - and you are and it's great - so keep up the great efforts, Fullrabb! ChristensenMJ (talk) 14:49, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Tabernacle Choir at Temple Square infobox logo

I see that you reversed previous revisions on the choir article in relation to the new logo. I have tried to upload an acceptable non-free use logo in Wikipedia and add it to the infobox with reasonable size and formatting. I also tried to mark the logo uploaded to Commons for speedy deletion as it should not be there. It has been a few years since I regularly contributed or dealt with logos, so hopefully my rationale statements, etc... are of sufficient quality. I would appreciate any feedback. Thanks! —GreenwoodKL ^{(t, c)} 05:42, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much, GreenwoodKL. Seems to look great! I don't always know the ins and outs of pictures and copyrights on WP. I just know that things generally from the church, like pictures of leaders, have not been eligible for use, so I wasn't sure. The formatting, which it sounds like you had seen how it looked, was clearly the "biggest" (literally) problem that drew attention. Thanks for your efforts! ChristensenMJ (talk) 14:43, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of general authorities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints- Ciro Schmeil Age

The age listed for Ciro Schmeil is wrong. I had changed it to the correct age, using his correct birthday, which is April 16, 1971. Here is my source: https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/elder-ciro-schmeil}} AlVic4011756O (talk) 04:42, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, AlVic4011756O. As I just noted on the article page, since there was no edit summary included in the change you made, I just had to try and got through the lines of article, I inadvertently thought Mutumbo's had been changed. There is no dispute that Schmeil's is as it has been changed back to. (I am taking off ref format for the source, so it doesn't sit at the bottom of the talk page going forward.) ChristensenMJ (talk) 04:54, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 24

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited James E. Talmage, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mutual Improvement Association (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 17:18, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:LDS

Thank you for the good citation on your removal of my edit. I had not seen the MOS:LDS page. I appreciate that. Also, I haven’t been an editor for too long here, could I ask, when you said “good faith edits, but ok per...” what did “good faith edits” refer to? Was it an expression of good will to say that you understood that my edits were good faith, or to express that your removal was intended in good faith? Is that a common inclusion when removing or altering other editor’s edits? Thanks for helping me get familiar! Jas DB (talk) 20:46, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Jas DB. On the MOS aspect, it gets a little tricky and it's been unique over the past 2 years since the church's expressed interest in referring to its name. There have been many discussions about aligning with the church's style guide, but generally things like common usage, WP not being beholden to what people/organizations want, etc. have kept the usage as it is. To your question, it was an acknowledgement that you edits were done in good faith....as you know, assumption of good faith is one of the key elements or pillars of WP. It doesn't need to be used - I probably partly did with the assumption that you were relatively new to editing. Hope that helps some. Thanks for your interest in participating and contributing to WP. ChristensenMJ (talk) 20:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Thanks so much. Also, do you happen to have any idea where I could find information about deleting a discussion from my own talk page if that’s possible? I accidentally sent myself one not knowing it would stay there and it just looks a little silly, haha. Thanks again for your help! Jas DB (talk) 21:01, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can either go and revert it, or just erase it. It would of course still show up in the page's history, but that's OK. If it's helpful, use the "Sandbox" option at the top of your browser when you want to test anything - edits, messages, etc. ChristensenMJ (talk) 21:04, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, thanks so much! Showin me around is totally not your job, but I appreciate you taking the time! Jas DB (talk) 21:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha - happy to try and help. I know some people post a "welcome template" to the page of relatively new users....I haven't used it and was trying to remember if I could recall a place to find it. ChristensenMJ (talk) 21:32, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Wikipedia developments

Hello again, ChristensenMJ! Wanted to let you know that after reading the previous thread here on your talk page, I was able to post a welcome message, complete with some helpful tools and an additional personal message, to the user with whom you interacted in the thread above this one. I also wanted to let you know that there is a discussion currently underway on this page about a proposed name change for a major article about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, for which I thought you might want to weigh in with your opinion. Thanks for all your continued efforts here. Keep up the great work!

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

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) 01:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 26

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mark Pope, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gonzaga.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:16, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Baptism for the Dead

Hi, I opened a discussion on Talk:Baptism for the dead. Feel free to contribute about this topic.--GenoV84 (talk) 23:38, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 2

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Larry H. Miller, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page GMC.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:12, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lectures on Faith see also removed

Hi, I noticed you removed my edit to the Lectures on Faith page. May I ask why? Two persons in the Godhead is by definition Binitarian right? I would appreciate your thoughts, thank you. 69.120.203.105 (talk) 20:21, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thanks so much for your note. I just wasn't sure the real relevance as a see also item....I guess other than providing a different perspective...?, since Latter Day Saint doctrine does not align with a two-person Godhead....just doesn't seem that relevant when see also information often, not always, is used to expand on something, or provide additional information on a similar vein to what is addressed in the article.....I may be totally missing the thought process, which is why I appreciate your reaching out.... ChristensenMJ (talk) 20:38, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting back to me. I understand that mainstream Latter Day Saints don't see it that way and will interpret the LoF differently, but for example other denominations such as the Cutlerites will see God in a Binitarian/Bitheist sense see here:

https://web.archive.org/web/20050206122610/http://www.cutlerite.org/trinity.htm

And they retain the LoF in their canon. Lecture 5 sounds strongly Binitarian to me, I know that is subjective in this context but then again aren't "trinity" verses in the Bible the same way? In that Trinitarians will see it as trinitarian and nontrinitarians will not.. Also, a honorable mention of the Bickertonites, they are Binitarian even though they don't have LoF in their canon. They are heavily influenced by Sydney Rigdon, who was said to have written or heavily influenced the LoF, this is referenced on the LoF article btw. Anyway, thanks again for your time and apologies if I'm being tangential. 69.120.203.105 (talk) 22:57, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a quick, initial reaction, I wonder if there might be consideration given to including something in the article about how differing remaining sects of the Latter Day Saint movement view this, as you've noted. I think that would not only inform others, but provide more context in the spirit of why you considered the see also piece in the first place.... ChristensenMJ (talk) 23:16, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is a great idea. I feel silly for not doing it initially haha. Thanks for the suggestion, I will get to it soon.. 69.120.203.105 (talk) 15:59, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for helping with vandalism to the Ravi Zacharias page. Proxima Centauri (talk) 10:49, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Logged-out editing is not allowed

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits while logged out. Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of both an account and an IP address by the same person in the same setting and doing so may result in your account being blocked from editing. Additionally, making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Thank you. - Bri.public (talk) 17:59, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note, Bri.public, though I have no idea what edits are being referred to. Since I don't log out on my home computers, if this did somehow happen, it was certainly inadvertent. Thanks again! ChristensenMJ (talk) 19:47, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It might not have been you, I'm chasing some undeclared paid editors around who use residential proxies on some Utah companies, and it's kind of messy. So if you say so I will take your word for it and stop bothering you. - Bri.public (talk) 20:01, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yep, definitely wasn't me. ChristensenMJ (talk) 20:12, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your revision on User talk:Jgstokes

Did you just revert this comment because it made WP:PA? ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲^(talk) 22:16, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially, yes. There have been a number of very inappropriate comments and personal attack-related things targeting him, with some measure of increase over this summer. Mostly by presumed sockpuppets who seem to just be in it for what they think the sport of it. You could find some of these on articles related to current or recent senior leaders of the LDS Church.....I am not taking the time to link to any here, but you may come across some of them.... ChristensenMJ (talk) 22:33, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's unfortunate. Thanks for the clarification and for watching out! ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲^(talk) 22:50, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LDS church edits

Apologies for the confusion with my edits to Kalani Sitake and Ken Niumatalolo. Didn't realize the links were already located earlier in the article but I'll keep an eye on that. I'm still learning the ways of Wikipedia so your explanation helps. Thank you! Spf121188 (talk) 12:21, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Totally no worries. You are doing great! Thanks for your interest in contributing to WP. ChristensenMJ (talk) 14:04, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you looking out! If it's okay, I'll message you if I have any further questions before making edits on this topic :) Spf121188 (talk) 17:36, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha - you bet....the responses you'll get may be worth the price you pay to get them, but happy to try and help. ChristensenMJ (talk) 17:42, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:20, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BYU-Idaho is a college

BYU-Idaho is clearly a college and not a university. It's classified among "Baccalaureate Colleges: Diverse Fields." It doesn't offer any graduate degrees. The name of the institution does not determine what it is; Dartmouth College is a university. ElKevbo (talk) 04:36, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 21

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Thomas Rex Lee, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Spencer Cox.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do not use unwarranted abbreviations

Nothing in the style manual encourages the use of acronyms. Rathfelder (talk) 17:43, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment, Rathfelder. As you know, standard editing guidelines generally use the full name of ....whatever the thing is....on its first usage, with an appropriately established short name then subsequently used....in WP, this can be seen at a place such as Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Acronyms and abbreviations - in the case of MOS:LDS for the LDS Church, it specifically identifies this aspect. So they are not only consistent with general and WP style usage, they aren't unwarranted and also aren't necessarily acronyms... ChristensenMJ (talk) 17:51, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That tells you to spell out abbreviations on the first use. It does not suggest that acronyms are a good idea. Rathfelder (talk) 17:52, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how to help on the personal opinion that short name use, or abbreviations, aren't a good idea, when it's standard usage....take any random example, such as the University of Nevada, Las Vegas - it's going to show that on the first instance, while establishing UNLV for all subsequent use....as noted, at least for the church things, that one does specifically say this....ChristensenMJ (talk) 17:57, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Its pretty well established that using acronyms does not help people unfamiliar with a topic. See [5] They are fine for insiders, but the point of an encyclopedia is to help people who arent insiders. Rathfelder (talk) 00:00, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Of course these aren't acronymns, they are defined and used appropriately within an article....I would certainly agree if the short names or abbreviations were used without context or initial defining of what is being referred to.... 00:05, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

They are just as excluding used this way. Rathfelder (talk) 09:06, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:LDS change discussion

A change to a provision at MOS:LDS regarding capitalization in titles is currently being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters § Midsentence capitalization of the that you might be interested in. Please participate in the discussion there, thanks. --FyzixFighter (talk) 12:54, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 00:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP BYU Invite

BRIGHAM NEEDS YOU!

Hello, Brother Brigham here.

I couldn't help but notice that you've made some edits to articles about Brigham Young University and thought you might want to become a member of the BYU WikiProject. We're reviving the project and would love your help! To join simply add your name to the participant list and start working on something from the To-do list. If you need any help, don't hesitate to ask another project member.

See you soon!

Jmjosh90 06:40, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Defending Harold Hillam

This user undertook to defend Harold Hillam by removing from Wikipedia well sourced and good faith edits describing the controversies surrounding that figure. The edits were factual and documented in numerous places including official US Government legal documents. Nonetheless, ChristensenMJ dishonestly removed these edits in an apparent attempt to defend the LDS church leader from public discussion of very real controversies.

Allegations of things like being dishonest in editing and so forth Couldn't be further from the truth and certainly an overstatement of well documented and appropriate use of reliable sources of what happened, what is alleged, and what someone says on a podcast. ChristensenMJ (talk) 12:59, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the sources cited included official documents provided by the United States Government. That is about as reliable a source as it is possible to get. Sources also included Deseret News; do you believe that this LDS church-owned news source is not a reliable source? For what purpose do you believe the LDS church continues to allow operation of a news source that you believe is unreliable? 176.228.6.73 (talk) 04:24, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I responded on the Hillam article's talk page, but your efforts continue to synthesize facts and information into drawing an outcome that is not supported by them in stand-alone fashion. As you ask about the Deseret News, it is fine as a source, when it actually tells the story you are trying to imply it's telling - which it is not....a search of the US Government reference you hold in such high regard doesn't even contain Hillam's name. ChristensenMJ (talk) 04:59, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Revert at list of the temples the church of jesus christ latter day saint

Why you reverted my changes? Its 17th september 2023... Joaosilva2000 (talk) 11:07, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You just got ahead of yourself, "bro" - Joaosilva2000 - and updated them too soon, before they were dedicated. ChristensenMJ (talk) 15:12, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's right, but it's only a few hours difference, so it won't make a big difference because in my country (Portugal) it was already the 17th of September... Joaosilva2000 (talk) 17:13, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, just remember that this ties to actual events, so time differences matter. ChristensenMJ (talk) 12:57, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question about edits to St. George Temple Page

Hi, I saw your most recent update on the St. George Temple page, I appreciate your grammatical fixes and general updates there. I believe your most recent edit was in good faith, to remove the header “access,” but I want to keep it there due to what I see from the Laie Hawaii Temple Page (which is listed as a good article). Despite the Laie Temple not being accessible to the public, it still contains information about who can get in (members of the church), through a section called “Admittance,” along with details of the visitors center. I am curious, and in as gentle a way as possible, I would like to better understand why you felt it was necessary to omit the information. And in the interest of improving the article, I want to see if we could bring back or reformat information about access. Itsetsyoufree32 (talk) 21:11, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Itsetsyoufree32! Nice to hear from you! Thanks for your efforts on various articles, particularly related to temples. Good question....and thanks for your good-faith efforts to be kind....I don't necessarily have any concerns about omitting the information, but if included, I do think it can 1) be simplified and 2) doesn't need/warrant a specific section. Part of the simplification may also include having information that doesn't sound too PR or advertisement-like..... ChristensenMJ (talk) 23:19, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Thanks for all the work on the temple pages that you help to work on! Your grammar edits help out a lot. :) Itsetsyoufree32 (talk) 04:13, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Family Services (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Family Services (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 3 § Family Services (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 21:22, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 24

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Portland Oregon Temple, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aaronic Priesthood.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editions

Why you did those 2 editions in the Church article? For the temples, that template is outdated and doesn't even has proper references, and the one that's there is just other note. Plus mentions "LDS Church", which is redundant because the article is about the Church, not about other Church or person or anything. For the Latter-day Saints topic, I think is important to note that, maybe it could have been in other place but you just removed it, that information is important enough to be in the article. And for the redirection of Latter-day Saints, why you moved it back to the Church article? I think it works better to Mormons article, literally "Latter-day Saints" is bold in that article. Furawi (talk) 04:20, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note, Furawi. 1) Actually, the template I put in there is very current, with several editors working hard to keep it that way (like Jgstokes). I recognize it doesn't contain references but has been in use to "drop in" and keep current the general information it contains, across several articles. Yes, I recognize it includes the church's name "again", but it is more reasonable than somebody having to try and separately maintain the information. 2) Sure, feel free to find a better place for it, although I personally don't know that it is needed. You could include it as a reference note, or even link to Name of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 3) In places where that redirect would be used, seems more natural to go to the church's article...while Mormons are of course largely associated with members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, it's not exclusive....you know that for a long time it actually directed to the Latter Day Saint movement page, which I agree may not be best....so, feel free to take that one up on the talk page if you feel strongly enough about it. Thanks for your continuing efforts to help WP be a helpful resource. ChristensenMJ (talk) 04:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1) But is still outdated, 189 operating temples not 188, 103 announced not 106, if doesn't has references then it could be removed, but I agree to use the template overall, is better so its updated in any other article but I wanna ask can we use my version for the template? Plus we could add the scheduled for groundbreaking and proper references (that note is wrong as reference). Thus the usage of "LDS Church" would be fine but if I could change it to just "church", I would, but is fine. 2) Sure, if I add it as a note in that same place where it was (Latter-day Saints), would be fine for you? 3) Yeah I know that, then is fine, thank you! Furawi (talk) 05:06, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are 106 temples announced, with 3 that have groundbreakings scheduled. Those groundbreakings have not taken place yet (one is scheduled for June 22, the other two won't take place until August 17), so the 3 are still announced temples until their respective groundbreakings. That is the distinction here. Updating those numbers before the groundbreakings actually take place would violate established policies. The numbers are therefore correct as shown. User:Jgstokes (talk)—We can disagree without becoming disagreeable. 05:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No it wouldn't, that's why it's "groundbreakings scheduled". Why the subtitle Groundbreaking scheduled doesn't breaks the policies, but adding "3 scheduled for groundbreaking" into Template:LDS Temple status does? Furawi (talk) 03:29, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]