Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement/Articles needed

Can you update the list? I would be willing to work on some articles. I think it just makes it easier to look through if we get rid of the 300 or so that are already done. Blahblah5555 (talk) 20:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to re-run whatever process generated this list? -- 71.35.46.20 21:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can we remove the articles that are no longer red-links? That would make it easier to tell what still needs to be done. -- 159.182.1.4 23:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's easy enough to see the red links. I'm amazed at how many articles have been created. What I should really do is dig out the perl script I used to generate this list. I don't remember where I saved it, but it would be interesting to see an up-to-date list of red links from LDS topics. Cool Hand Luke 00:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uhh - yeah. Would love to see it regenerated. Can it also help update List of articles about Mormonism? -Visorstuff 00:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an issue with the recent edits I've been making to Wikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement/Articles needed? All of them were recently reverted by Cabe6403 (talk · contribs) without a real explanation, so I reverted to last version before his revert and am bringing the issue here before I do anything else to that page. -- 159.182.1.4 23:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have a better chance of not getting reverted if you register a username with wikipedia - may editors think major edits by IP addresses is typically vandalism. It's easy to register, and we'd love to have you aboard! -Visorstuff 23:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the invitation, but actually the account I can use while editing at other locations already appears on the WP:LDS participants page; I'm not allowed to "logon" to any web-based resource from this IP address, or identify myself personally, although there is obviously more than just me editing from this IP. I do have great concerns about anyone automatically assuming an edit is vandalism just because it comes from an IP. As I recall, the WP vandalism study actually found that about a quarter of all vandalism is cleaned up by people editing from IPs. The trend of assuming bad faith on the part of IPs seems to be most prevalent among those doing recent change patrol in an effort to gain enough experience points to become a Dungeon Master (read Administrator), but I'm not interested in playing that game. The key is the edit not the editor, and anything else can become a distraction from building an encyclopedia. -- 159.182.1.4 00:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I do believe that Administrators play a very useful role at WP, but like most positions of trust, those that are actively pursuing it as the main goal of their efforts also tend to be those that are least qualified for it. -- 159.182.1.4 00:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with you. I'd rather have good content from anonymoous editor than stupid ones from registered users. However, this is likely the reson for the revert. glad you are a participant. -Visorstuff 00:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]