User talk:Kmsiever/2006

Mormons

Mormons and Heavenly Mother

"Mormon children are taught that someday the name of the Heavenly Mother will be revealed, and TEENAGERS are told the reason it has not been revealed so far is in order to prevent anyone from taking her name in vain." I do apologize. I accidentally left out the word "teenagers" in the previous statement I inserted in the Heavenly Mother article. With the word "teenagers" inserted, this statement reflects what I was taught in the LDS Church. Besides being taught this in church, I was also told this by my Mormon mother. I attended the LDS Church until the age of 18. Best wishes to you, Keraunos 08:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It may have reflected what you were taught in Church, but your anecdote does not necessarily reflect that of the wider church. I was never taught this in Primary, Sunday school or Seminary. My parents never taught me this. The missionaries never taught em this. My home teachers never taught me this. I have never taught this to my children. I never taught this as a Primary teacher. I never taught this to children as a missionary. I have never heard this taught to children in any of the more than 100 wards in which I have lived. Unless this statement can be verified somehow with proper citation, it should be left out. --Kmsiever 15:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You sound like you've been indoctrinated into the church for a long time, but haven't really studied what it teaches. I was raised in it and studied its doctrines quite thoroughly, until I sincerely came to the conclusion that the Book of Mormon, and thus the basis for the entire religion, is a fabrication. This "heavenly mother" teaching is common in Mormonism.. [1][2] I completely understand how you must feel, I used to be the same way. I encourage you to indulge your curiosity in your own religion, because you'll certainly find out what other crazy things you believe when you accept the doctrine of the church, but hey, believing in crazy stuff is worth it as long as you can live in heaven, right!? I mean, if those crazy things aren't correct, what about the teaching of the afterlife? Common themes to investigate: the millions of other faiths out there, many of whom think you will suffer eternal damnation for believing differently (personally I'm not one of them. :) Or take the nature of God, is it unchanging like many say (including the Mormon Church), or did he go from the ass kicking genocidal maniac God in the old testament to the deadbeat dad God we know and love in the present? Personally, I think if God does exist, it doesn't interfere in human affairs (religions made of people sure do, but no god or goddess does.) PS: Kiss Hank's butt, and get a million dollars! [3]. Sincerely, ≈Superbeatles™ 02:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I never said the idea of Heavenly Mother is not perpetuated int he Mormon church. I said the idea that one day her name will be revealed to us is not widely taught. I left my previous comment for you to re-read. I hope you will take the time to read them, so you can avoid red herrings in the future. --Kmsiever 14:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I didn't realize it was a discussion about such a tedious as 'whether the name of this supposed heavenly mother will be told to people!!!!!' It's obviously Eve, I mean if God was Adam as the unchanging doctrine once told us... [4]. I know! I am going to offend Adam-God. Hey, Adam-God, Eve-Goddess sucks! You heard me. Hmm, strange, no signs of divine anger. Maybe Adam-God doesn't read wikipedia? hmm... ≈Superbeatles™ 06:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh good. A logical discussion. --Kmsiever 13:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warren Jeffs

Thanks for digging up that category for the Warren Jeffs article! Dick Clark 18:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. --Kmsiever 18:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob (Book of Mormon) --> Jacob (prophet)

I notice with some dismay that you have renamed several articles about Book of Mormon figures from "Name (Book of Mormon)" to "Name (prophet)". I realize that naming conventions in Wikipedia are ambiguous, but, in my opinion, this change is not helpful. The Book of Mormon context is important in identifying the person. The fact that they are a prophet is less important in identifying them (again, in my opinion). The clearest case is with Jacob. There is only one "Jacob" in the Book of Mormon, but there is more than one prophet named Jacob.

I realize there is some confusion for the frequent case where the prophet and the book (Jacob, Enos, Jarom, Omni,...) have the same name and your "prophet" designation is a useful disambiguation. As I recall, there has been an article entitled "Mormon (prophet)" for a long time, but I think Mormon is a special case, since there are several different usages within the Book of Mormon.

What if we settled on "Name (Book of Mormon prophet)"? We could both get our way. :) andersonpd 00:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. Conventions on Wikipedia are to differentiate with nouns that refer to the person (i.e. prophet) rather than where they are found (i.e. Book of Mormon). For example, if there is a New York baseball player and a Los Angeles mayor each named John Smith, we may use John Smith (baseball player) and John Smith (mayor) rather than John Smith (New York) and John Smith (Los Angeles). --Kmsiever 04:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kim, I'm copying this discussion to the WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement talk page to get additional input. andersonpd 21:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lethbridge

I'd just like to take the time out to thank you for your contributions to the Lethbridge article. You are doing a great job. --Yamla 19:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words, Yamla. I live here and I hope to make Lethbridge more well known and make it seem like the large city that it is. --Kmsiever 19:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History of Lethbridge

No, I'm not blind, just visually-impaired. Besides violating Wikipedia policy against personal attacks, what was the point of saying that? The article needed wikification IMO, you did the necessary edits. Why the personal attack? -Fsotrain09 22:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article had plenty of wikified links (27 out of the current 33 to be exact); the template tag was uncalled for. Thus the only deduction I could make for you adding it was that you could not see them. --Kmsiever 22:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I plainly saw was a few blocks of text that did not look much like a Wikipedia article. Those structural issues had nothing to do with the number of wikified links. Since the layout did not follow [WP:MOS], I added the tag. -Fsotrain09

Then someone needs to edit the template because the first link points to the following defintion: To format using Wiki markup . . . and add internal links to material, incorporating it into the whole of Wikipedia. Based on that definition, the article was already wikified. --Kmsiever 23:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LCI Alumni

Why remove G.S. Lakie from the LCI alumni list? He's seems pretty notable to me, at least locally; he's on our "Wall of Distinction". If one of the criteria for the list is to be known North America wide, it's understood. Phoenix2 22:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's the point in linking to defunct articles in a list? I think he'd be a good person to list, but I really think that a list of alumni should point to existing article. Particularly as a way to discourage every Tom, Dick and Harry who thinks he's famous to try and list himself in the list. Put G. S. Lakie on the list, but at least have a stub to point to. --Kmsiever 23:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Allied Arts Council of Lethbridge

I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Allied Arts Council of Lethbridge, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at Talk:Allied Arts Council of Lethbridge. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. Brianyoumans 06:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regina

Further re: length of Regina article

We're still getting the thing of: "This page is 32 kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable; see article size."

May I suggest that the following sections be hived off into separate sub-articles with, of course, overviews retained in the main article:

Industry and resources
Wascana Centre (actually this perhaps merits a substantive article of its own in any event)

Masalai 14:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a good idea. I will put those together --Kmsiever 14:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you might find it interesting to consult the Wikipedia articles on cities such as Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne, all cities of some millions rather than hundreds of thousands. Previous drafts of the Regina article notably erred on the side of naïve civic boosterism ("impressive skyline" indeed!) but we should not go overboard in minimising the merits of this interesting city with its decidedly interesting past and continuingly lively present. The article (and the subsidiary articles) is now deficient in illustrative photos. I expect to be in Regina in July, or at least sometime this year, for a family corroborree and I can amply remedy this default without copyright issues. Let's not cut too aggressively, shall we? Masalai 11:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Masalai, I am not sure what you mean; I have not removed any photos from what I recall, other than moving some to subarticles. --Kmsiever 13:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean that you had removed any useful photos; only that in editing down, you may have removed useful text. I'm sorry if I gave that impression. But also that the article could now profitably be improved by the addition of a great deal of photographic illustration, as with the articles on several cities of considerably greater significance -- cf the articles on several Australian cities (though Australia does not have any cities comparable to Regina, Winnipeg or Saskatoon, Australia being an entirely urban country). I think that comparing the Regina article with articles on other Canadian cities of decidedly minor provenance is both unfair and irrelevant. Excellence should be the standard. What say ye? Masalai 13:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me --Kmsiever 19:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citations in Regina article

I see you have rescued my half-completed and temporarily abandoned footnoting exercise. Thanks -- I was going to get back to it shortly but it is such a finicky procedure. Masalai 00:16, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. It's not that it's finicky; it's just that you had one extra tag, so it through the rest off. --Kmsiever 00:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this an issue? —

"...and was a national scandal at the time"?

Have you not seen the cartoons in the contemporary national press? !!!! --Masalai

I do not know to what you are referring, Masalai? --Kmsiever 19:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid URLs

You claimed that missing a trailing slash does not make the URL invalid. In fact, it does. Your browser tries to retrieve the URL and gets an error message from the web server. It then has to go make a second request for the automatically corrected URL. It's possible that modern browsers are smart enough in some cases to automatically correct for this (although they cannot in the general case), but it is still not a good idea to rely on this. --Yamla 16:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Montréal professions

I hope you are not the person that is erasing my work, we need a category of Montréal's by profession. The has been agreed by other people here in Montréal, including many of the people listed as famous Montrealers, such as the Mayor Montréal for example, as well some of the athletes and musicians who are friends of mine.

If it really is necessary to have such a category, then create a category; do not create an article that acts as category. See your talk page for more information. --Kmsiever 02:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Kim Siever. I don't know what you mean by categories or articles. I'm just adding a the link for famous Montrealers by professions. Many people would like to search for an athlete specifically, or a politician, or in business person, and does not want to go through the hassles of searching through a list of alphabetical order.

Once they click on the link. Then they go to a page that has categories such as, actors and actresses of Montréal, athletes and sports figures of Montréal, business people of Montréal, philosophers of Montréal, and politicians of Montréal, etc. etc. They just click on what category they want, i.e. actors and actresses of Montréal, and then there for simplistic reasons, they'll will be a list of actors and actresses of Montréal by alphabetical order.

I believe that the city of Calgary, Alberta, lists its famous or notable people according to profession without any alphabetical lists of notable people. However, instead of me eliminating the alphabetical list, since someone took the time to create it, I simply wanted to add a link that lists famous or notable Montrealers by their profession. This way, if somebody wanted to look up famous or notable Montrealers by their profession they can, and because there is people that I know of, here in Montréal, who would like to do that. What is wrong with the way I did it? Keep in mind the link that you refer me to clearly states that Wikipedia's, suggestions, which you speak of, to criticize my own work, is not policy, and hence just guidelines or suggestions.

So if it is all right with you, and if I have your divine blessing, can I go ahead and do it? I put a lot of time and effort into creating the link and the categories, and as I respect others worked by not erasing their work but rather creating another option by creating another link, I should hope that you would pay the same respect, as I would any of your work.

The purpose of this online encyclopedia is to inform people, and categorizing people by their professions, only helps to inform people in a more simplistic manner, and I'm always searching for ways to help others and to allow a progress in their education, since I am a professor at McGill University here in Montréal, the city in which I was born and raised.

I'm also a friend and an acquaintance of some of the famous people of Montréal, such as, the Bronfman family, Brian Mulroney, the former Prime Minister Canada, and his son Ben Mulroney. As well as Justin Trudeau, and his late father Pierre Elliott Trudeau, as well as the former Prime Minister Canada Paul Martin, who in fact is very good friends with my father, who used to be the President of United Irish Societies of Montréal. And also friends with Paul Martin's three sons.

I am friends with many of the great athletes that have come from Montréal, particularly the football players, and the basketball players who have played for Canada in the Olympic Games. As well, I am friends and acquaintances with some of the people of the Montréal Jubilation Gospel Choir, including the founder Trevor Payne himself. As well as many of the great jazz artists that have come out of Montréal, such as the Biddle family, and Oliver Jones.

By the way, why are you so interested in Montréal? Have you ever been here?

Please get back to me.

Yours truly Jesus of montreal 07:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"I don't know what you mean by categories or articles."

Precisely why you need to read the resources I gave you in your talk page. If you do not understand the difference between categories and articles, then perhaps you should reconsider how valuable your contributions to Wikipedia can be. --Kmsiever 12:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Accidental Deletion

No prob - I'm not sure how that happens either - I don't think it is anything you did - Trödel 21:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article proposal

Kim, Would you mind commenting on my proposal at Talk:Mormonism? Thx! --AuntieMormom 15:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Polyandry page edits

When you remove the code I added, the text gets pushed down several inches on the page. It looks like a blank article when you first open it. I would like to put the code back so the text appears at the top of the page as it should. Kelly 18:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've opened the article in two different browsers (Firefox and IE) and I do not see the empty space you are describing. I removed the code you added because it had broken up the first sentence (some of it before the table and some fo it after). --Kmsiever 18:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on whether you have the browser maximized (or have a high screen resolution). If you resize the browser window to be smaller, you reach a threshold where the text does get pushed down. Users should be able to resize their browser windows to anything they desire. An alternative is to put the primarysources template on top and align the close relationships template to the text. Please look at it and let me know if that's an acceptable alternative. Kelly 00:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I never maximise my browser. I think your alternative is a good idea; I also think it's a good idea structurally since the template should be the most important element on the page. --Kmsiever 01:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. I went to all pages on which the close relationships template is located and did the same thing as with this article. By the way, I think some people are getting ready to improve the article on polygyny. I don't know if you would be interested in participating. Just thought I'd let you know. Kelly 02:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check the history

Check the history on Talk:Medicine Hat, Alberta, that comment doesn't belong to me, it's a very old one, dating back to november 2003; the article was overhauled since. I've fixed the signatures. --Qyd 21:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We must have commented on each other's Talk pages at the same time. Sorry about the mixup. --Kmsiever 21:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okanagan/Okanogan

By now you've seen my revision of your qualification of the sub-direct at the top of the Okanagan page. A similar issue exists with Kootenay River/Kutenai River and also Pend d'Oreille R./Pend Oreille R. I do agree that there is a trend towards putting the name of the people in their preferred usage, as in the Kutenai/Ktunaxa case with Kootenai (in BC in modern use it's been Ktunaxa for quite a while); some conventions are still conventions, though, like Skokomish, who in their own language are normally the Twana, but they use Skokomish for themselves as well (it's Chinook Jargon); likewise Tillamook vs Nehalem.

But with Okanagan/Okanogan it's tricky; there's also no cross-border tribal organization as you might expect, not that I know of anyway; and different groups of BC Okanagan peoples use variant spellings/pronunciation; in the case of the Nicola valley branch, it's Siylx; I'll have to look up the rest; their close kin around Keremeos use a different spelling but go by Similkameen, the name of the river there. Can't remember with Westbank, Penticton etc. There currently is no Okanagan-people article and there needs to be (it's a big hole in Salishan languages) and some kind of resolution has to be made on which spelling to use, if Okanagan/Okanogan is the name to be used. In other cases, like Squamish Nation, the orthographic stew of their proper spelling is not used for the main article, which is still a cross over between an ethnography article and a political body article - see Talk:Wikipedia:WikiProject:Indigenous peoples of North America]], or somewhere in that WikiProject's now layered pages anyway (recently revised/reformatted by the amazing User:Phaedriel). If you're not already signed up for that WikiProject, it certainly looks like it should be by what I can see of your edits this morning (many of the pages you've worked on I've got on "watch"). Anyway, I'm still not entirely happy with my adjustment to your change to the subheading on Okanagan, but your change didn't "work" either; BC's Okanagan is far better known than Washington's Okanogan, and I'm not sure either name will be appropriate for any language/people article once it gets written...Will consult with a native linguist guy once he gets back to me about some other stuff I posted to him this morning.Skookum1 16:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aaaah. Just saw your most recent change. I think the issue now is that Okanagan should have been a disambig page from the start, but it was written by an Okanaganite apparently and as with Vancouver the usual style guidelines weren't followed and it became "established"; it would be a lot of work to change Okanagan now, as it was with Vancouver and other pages which don't have location-designators; in Vancouver's case the proper "style" should have been Vancouver, British Columbia. OK, I'll look at the disambig page and see what's which now.....Skookum1 16:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Links in leading paragraph

Please note that wikilinks (as opposed to external links) in the leading paragraph are not to be eliminated alltogether (avoided is the term used in WP:LAYOUT), they should provide context (see WP:LEAD). All articles (except the ones that are completely plain text) provide relevant links in the lead section. In Lethbridge, at least Alberta and Canada should be wilikinked. Cheers. --Qyd 16:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The guide does not specify external links. It simply says "links".

"Avoid links in the summary--users should be encouraged to read the summary, and the article, before jumping elsewhere. In addition the colored highlighting of the links may mislead some users into thinking these are especially important points."

--Kmsiever 16:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Census-related articles

Hi Kmsiever,

Census Agglomeration, Census metropolitan area

(rv unless someone can show a discussion took place that warranted such a widespread change)

Sorry if you've found my consolidation of the above in Census divisions of North America perturbing. It's meant to be part of WP:WPCSub; cf (in particular) the ["Subdivisions of C" articles] thread onward here and ["Country subdivisions"] thread here. The tables of information will soon reappear as separate articles and/or templates. Regards, David Kernow (talk) 00:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the links, but I still don't see where this decision was widely accepted amongst Wikipedia editors. I think at the very least a clear discussion should be made about moving Canadian subdivision articles to North America articles and the affected articles should have merge notices posted so more discussion and a better consensus can be reached. --Kmsiever 18:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like Kmsiever says, first we need a discussion on whether this massive reorganization is needed on the appropriate talk pages. In my view, it is absurd to put all of them in Census divisions of North America. "Census division" has very clear but distinct meanings in the US and Canada. They are statistical artifacts with no legal standing created by the respective countries' statistical agencies — albeit extremely useful to social scientists. At best, this should be a disambiguation page. Census agglomerations (Canada), micropolitan areas (US) and Census metropolitan areas (both countries), Census subdivisions (i.e municipalities and equivalent in Canada) are different animals, nothing to do with census divisions. Why they would all be on the same page makes no sense. The work you are doing is clearly original research. Luigizanasi 17:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have copied the two responses above (and added my own) here; hope that's okay. Yours, David (talk) 23:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anchor stores in Guildford Town Centre

Wouldn't London Drugs, The Bay, Sears, and Wal-Mart count as anchor stores? :: Colin Keigher 02:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but for Guildford Shopping Centre, not Guildford Town Centre. --Kmsiever 12:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry. I don't quite follow you. Guildford Town Centre is the mall. What is this Guildford Shopping Centre? :: Colin Keigher 19:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise. As you allude, the mall is not called Guildford Shopping Centre. That being said, the official name for the mall is Guildford Town Centre Mall. Guildford Town Centre refers to the town centre of Surrey, just like Newton, Fleetwod, Cloverdale and the like are town centres. --Kmsiever 20:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No need for apologies! Your edit makes sense now. :) :: Colin Keigher 20:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Browser width

Thanks for pointing out the browser width issue in Towns of Alberta. I've adjusted the table width there, in Mountains of Alberta, Lakes of Alberta and List of tallest buildings in Calgary, which uses the same layout. --Qyd 15:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I noticed the change in Towns of Alberta. Wasn't aware of an issue in the other ones. --Kmsiever 15:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sylar reversion

I noticed that you reverted back the Sylar article to include a statement about his victims including an "Unknown male in 9th Wonders comic strip ", which had been deleted apparently because no one cited a source verifying this. Do you know which "unknown male" this is referring to? Primogen 20:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind. I see you reverted your reversion. :) Primogen 20:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy note about ArbCom proceeding

Hiya, sorry to bother you, but I wanted to drop you a courtesy note to let you know about a current ArbCom proceeding where your name is briefly mentioned. If you are not familiar with ArbCom, please do not be alarmed. In real-world terms, this is sort of like stating that your name is being mentioned as one of the witnesses (or possibly even bystanders) to a case. ArbCom cases tend to be somewhat large and chaotic, but if you would like to watch the proceedings, you may wish to set Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions on your watchlist. Your own name is probably somewhere on the evidence page, or possibly at the workshop page. The case is currently in an "evidence-gathering" phase and has not yet reached the state of actual comment by arbitrators yet. My guess is it'll probably run for another month or so before a decision is finalized.

No action is needed on your part, this is just a courtesy note. If you would like to participate in the case though, you are more than welcome. You may wish to offer a statement with your view of events at the case's talkpage, or you can add evidence or participate in the workshop. Many editors routinely participate in ArbCom proceedings regardless of whether or not they are directly involved in the case, since ArbCom rulings are considered "binding" and may have ramifications in other parts of Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, let me know, or feel free to post at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions. Best, El on ka 06:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]