User talk:Frecklefoot/Archive1

This is an archive of old discussions. For new topics, visit my current talk page.

---

Welcome

Hello there Frecklefoot, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Wikipedia:Naming conventions or how to format them visit our manual of style. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the Village pump. Cheers! --maveric149

---

Visual Studio .NET

Re: merging our Visual Studio .NET writeups

I'll drink your blood for this.

Okay, on actually reading it, it's better than what I wrote alone. Good job! JJ

---

INXS

Thanks for your expansion of INXS. It's in considerably better shape than I left it.  :-) Koyaanis Qatsi

Thanks. It needs a lot more work though! -Frecklefoot

---

Nature of Godhead

Ok. I'll leave your change on Jesus Christ alone, but it's pretty clear you're not a Latter Day Saint. What I wrote is very much in keeping with LDS doctrine. The Mormon concept of "Godhead" is not a trinity.

Compare these words from the Wikipedia Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints page:

God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are three separate and distinct personages that together form the Godhead (as distinct from the Trinity decreed by the First Council of Nicaea).

I'll leave it up to you to re-fix that entry or not.

(and sorry for responding here, but my browser can't edit pages as large as the Jesus Christ Talk page. hope you'll forgive me.)

Arthur 19:18 Jan 27, 2003 (UTC)

Actually, I am LDS, but it appears you are not. Here is what you wrote:

"The Mormons also deny the Trinity and assert that Jesus, Jehovah, and The Holy Ghost are three separate entities."

Mormons beleive that Jesus and Jehovah are the same individual.

Thanks, Frecklefoot, for getting back to me.

Though you are right about the Godhead being made up of three seperate entities, it is made up of God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost. I changed the text because the way you worded it, you started talking about Mormon theology and I didn't think the Jesus Christ page was the right place for it (especially since there are about a dozen entries on the LDS church describing our theology). In my orginal edit:

"In addition to the beleifs of the Christian account of Jesus (with the exception of the concept of the Trinity), the..."

I wanted to point out that Mormons beleive Jesus Christ was/is the Messiah just as "mainstream" Christians do. I added the part about not beleiving in the Trinity only to note where Mormons don't share the same view as other Christians. I think my last edit (11:52 Jan 27, 2003) should stand since it is correct regarding the LDS view. -Frecklefoot

Okay, as I said, I'm leaving this up to you. But there is an extensive discussion on the LDS page that denies this. And hundreds of Mormons have edited that page. I'll bet you can't find http://www.lds.org saying that Jesus and Jehovah are the same individual (I tried). And, I bet you'll get a big disagreement if you make that claim on the LDS page--or undo the work of all the Mormons who have written it. The section in Jesus Christ that I edited was Other Views--where I assumed the topic should be other views of Jesus Christ, and thus included one of the defining characteristics of the LDS church, who consider him to be separate individual. How was that not appropriate?

and please don't think I'm being disrespectful. That's not my intent. Thanks for all the effort. Really! I recognize that all of us are working to improve this. and I'm not always right. :)

(for the record, my grandfather was a Bishop in Salt Lake City--actually, I suppose, in a SLC suburb).

Arthur

I couldn't find anything on the LDS page that denies that Jehovah and Jesus Christ were the same individual. In fact, I couldn't see where that page mentioned Jehovah at all. But the edit I made to Jesus Christ doesn't mention the Godhead at all. Let me look at it again and see if I can work it in somehow. The only thing I was opposed to was that you had Jehovah and Jesus listed as two different individuals.

Sorry if I sounded confrontational -- I didn't mean to. I just wanted to get this edit hashed out. :)

You say your granddad was a bishop, but you don't say whether you are a member or not? -Frecklefoot

Hi again. No, you didn't sound confrontational. I actually like your style. I'm happy if you are.

Because you and I disagreed about such a fundamental issue, I decided I'd better check my understanding. So I went the Undernet #LDS IRC chat page for more opinions. I asked about the official church view on whether God and Jesus were the same individual. Of all the people there, not one said yes. They said, "they are one in purpose" but definitely not as beings. They said anyone claiming otherwise is "confused." And that was a channel full of members. Could you go there too to verify this? (Who knows. maybe I phrased the question there in a way you'd have disliked. That's why I'l like you to get your own answers, too.) I'd like for you and me to come to a mutual understanding.

Arthur

I really like your last edit on Jesus Christ. See you around the "pedia". Arthur

Thanks! I'm glad you like it.

I think I see what was the source of the misunderstanding now. Let me try to word this carefully this time so we will be on the same page. From the Mormon perspective, God, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost are three seperate individuals. They are the three members of the Godhead and are, as you state, one in purpose but not one in being. I totally agree with this and didn't think I was refuting it. However I said:

Jesus and Jehovah are the same individual

and that is where the misunderstanding began. The statement is true, but let me clarify. Jehovah is another name for Jesus Christ (at least in Mormonism). Look it up in any Mormon reference you like. I think you were using the name Jehovah to refer to God (Heavenly Father), but this is incorrect. The confusion may stem from the fact that Jehovah is the God of the Old Testament. When the Jews were wandering in the desert being led by Jehovah, they were actually being led by the premortal Jesus, known to them as Jehovah, the Great "I Am" (you can also check this out with learned Mormons and they will agree -- not all Mormons are aware of this fact).

I never meant to infer that God and Jesus were one in physical being, but my wording may have made it sound that way. I hope this is clear now and we can close this issue. :) -Frecklefoot

---

Dan's View on the Godhead

Perhaps one other bit of input could help clarify things as well. I'd like to share a doctrinal support to the idea that Jehovah is in fact, Jesus Christ. Or in other words, before entering mortality, Jesus Christ was known as Jehovah, and led the children of Israel. Jehovah should not be confused with God the Father, as they are not the same person. The Godhead consists of God the Father, Jesus Christ(also known as Jehovah, often referred to as "God" by the children of Israel), and the Holy Ghost.

Now for the doctrinal support: In The Book of Mormon, in 3 Nephi 15:3-5, Jesus Christ tells the ancient inhabitants of America that He is the one who gave the law to Moses, thus identifying himself as "Jehovah, the God of the Old Testament" - but he is not saying that He is God the Father. This may confuse some, because while Jesus Christ and God the Father are not the same being, Jesus Christ is often also referred to as "The Father", because He is the Father of our eternal life and the Creator of this world. He is also called "the Son" because God the Father is literally His male parent.

In The Bible, it is extremely obvious to the careful reader that the God of the Old Testament "Jehovah" is also the God of the New Testament, "Jesus Christ". They are the same person. Jehovah is the name which Jesus Christ was known by prior to entering mortality. However, don't be confused: Jesus Christ has a Father just as we do. He is not His own Father. Thus Jesus Christ(Jehovah), is the second person in the Godhead, and is completely distinct from God the Father, and is also completely distinct from the Holy Ghost. They are distinct because they are seperate entities, each with their own free will to exercise as they so choose - but they are perfect, therefore their wills are in perfect harmony with one another, not because of some pre-existing state that forces them to be, but because they chose to become perfect.

To give just a few brief examples from the Bible: OT Exodus 3:14 - Jehovah identifies Himself with the name "I AM". NT St. John 8:56-59 - Jesus Christ identifies Himself with the name "I AM".

OT Isaiah 43:3,11 - Jehovah identifies Himself as Lord, and as the only Savior. NT Luke 2:11 - Angels identify Jesus Christ as Lord and as a Saviour (and there is only one Savior according to the OT).

OT Isaiah 45:12 - Jehovah identifies Himself as the Creator of our world. NT Ephesians 3:9 - Identifies Jesus Christ as the Creator sent by The Father. NT Hebrews 1:2 - Again identifies Christ as the Creator sent by The Father.

OT Zechariah 12:9-10 - Jehovah speaking, "they shall look upon me whom they have pierced". NT Revelation 1:5-7 - Jesus Christ shall come and be seen by "they also which pierced him".

This was a little more lengthy than I first intended, but you hopefully get the idea by this point. This is a doctrine that all Latter-day Saints should be familiar with. I'm only 21, and am familiar with it. In order to really understand who we are, and why we exist, we have to understand who God the Father is, and what our relationship to Him is. We also have to understand who Christ is, and what our relationship to Him is. And we must have the companionship of The Holy Spirit in order to be taught what we need to learn. Without an omniscient Teacher, we could easily learn untruths; but with the constant companionship of an omniscient Deity, we can safely proceed onward toward omniscience ourselves. The Human race is fascinating. Our potential for progress is unlimited.

Hope I've shed some light on the subject!

-Dan R.

Well, you pretty much backed up what I was saying. Thanks! —Frecklefoot 19:31, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

---

SDK

Had some fun merging Software Development Kit with my article on the subject. Please proofread and hit me if I wrote something stupid. -- Jörgen Nixdorf

---

Nefertiti bust

Is it all right if I move the content of Nefertiti bust into Nefertiti and make the former a redirect? I can't think of anything that could be said about the bust that wouldn't fit into the article on Nefertiti herself. If there is a good reason to have this as a separate article, let me know (at Talk:Nefertiti bust); otherwise, I'll redirect it in a few days... -- Oliver P. 17:15 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Okay, I've done it... I copied your story from the talk page, though, so if anyone can confirm it they can put it into the Nefertiti article at some point. Or even resurrect your article... -- Oliver P. 20:17 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)

---

School prayer

Thanks for your note about the School prayer page. One of us (or someone) needs to do more here, to discuss why some people object to prayer in schools and maybe connect it to prayer in government meetings etc. I may get back to this later. Vicki Rosenzweig 20:59 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Some solid research needs to be done on this topic. What I wrote initially was mostly from memory (but all our articles need to start somewhere. :^) —Frecklefoot 13:38 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)

---

Mailing lists

Hi - for details about the mailing lists, see Wikipedia:Mailing lists. The discussion about the recent software update happened on Wikipedia-L and Wikitech-L - WikiEN-L tends to be about issues specific to the English-language Wikipedia (mainly complaints about particular users). Announcements are normally made on the cryptically titled Wikipedia:Announcements ;-) --Camembert

Thanks, Cam. I'll become a learned Wikipedian yet! :) —Frecklefoot 19:10, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

---

MFC

Thank you for your excellent edits to MFC. I wanted to say that OWL was superior, but wasn't quite confident enough to do so, since I had never used it. The topic seems to cry out for a link to something like Graveyard of Products Destroyed by Microsoft's Anticompetitive Monopolistic Practices. Kat 18:13, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I did use OWL for quite a while, but I kind of think it was Borland's own fault for not updating it. :S —Frecklefoot 18:30, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

Word of Wisdom

Thanks for tracking down and referencing that article I said I would add. The broken wrist, medication, etc has slowed me down. I think other research has also been done on the LDS lifestyle and health correlation, but the article you refrenced is the particular one I had in mind. B 20:39, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

n/p. :-) I guess I was just in the mood to track it down that day. I'm glad I was able to find some stuff on the Internet about it. I was kind of disappointed I couldn't find the original article, but Lindsay's site has the full text of it, so I guess that's the next best thing. —Frecklefoot 21:36, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

Irrelevant links

Re Karl-Maria Kertbeny, please do not fill articles (my articles anyway) full of trivial and irrelevant links. Thanks. Adam 00:08, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Well, first off, no one on Wikipedia "owns" any articles. If you create an article, you submit it with the understanding that it may be modified by anyone at anytime. You agree to this the second you hit the "Save page" button. I've created dozens of articles, but don't claim ownership to any of them. Some people may make changes that I disagree with, and if that happens, I talk to them about it or revert the changes in obvious cases of vandalism.

Secondly, my links weren't irrelevant. The article mentioned blackmail, I created a link to blackmail. How is that irrelevant? It is possible that some readers don't know what blackmail is. How is linking journalist with its definition irrelevant? The wikilink provides extra information if they need it.

Thirdly, if you look at the subsequent edits by Viajero, you'll see that he left most of my wikilinks in, while you removed all of them. If they were so distasteful, why did he leave them in? Some of the wikilinks were redundant (they were linked earlier in the article, e.g. Germany was linked twice). To this I reply: guilty. I made some mistakes—I too dislike redundant wikilinks in articles. In my editing, I just didn't catch them. I appreciate Wikipedia's open forum so anyone can correct mistakes that I (or anyone else) makes.

Lastly, I liked the original wording of the article (as far as I know, I didn't change much wording at all). I had never heard of Kertbeny, and after reading (and editing) the article, I was much more enlightened. I'm not homosexual, but now I know where the term originated. But now with the reverts of the wikilinks I created, I think the article is far less accessible. Prudent wikilinks make Wikipedia articles as useful and informative as possible.

I'll leave the Kertbeny article alone for now (since you'll probably just revert any changes I make), but I can't promise to leave alone any articles you create or touch in the future. I'm a big beleiver in wikilinks (only where prudent) and thought my links were relevant and useful.

Cheers :^) —Frecklefoot 15:31, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Dear Frecklefoot

• I am quite aware of the rules of submitting articles here. Nevertheless I retain a paternal interest in the articles I write and submit, as I'm sure all contributors do, including you. That is what I mean by "my" articles.
• I think links should be confined to names, places and technical terms, or to topics relevant to the subject of the article. Examples in this article would have been Vienna, Richard von Krafft-Ebing or sodomy. I don't think links to common nouns like writer, painter or journalist serve any good purpose. Other contributors can link anything they like, and I won't tamper with their work.
• You are of course free to edit my articles, and I am free to unedit them - though in fact I frequently agree that other peoples' edits have improved what I wrote.
• I'm glad you found the article interesting. Adam 16:15, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Well, I think we just have a different point of view on wikilinks. I think when a term is mentioned in an article, it should be wikilinked, but only if it is relevant. Since there is an entire article about journalist, I felt it qualified for a wikilink. I agree with your link to sodomy, but I think other terms like blackmail and extortion should have links as well. I am not for linking every single word in an article, though links do tend to bunch up near the beginning of an article since that's where terms tend to be mentioned for the first time. I don't find wikilinks unsightly (I actually like them where relevant), but will leave your article as you like it (I don't want to start an edit war). If you want to continue this discussion, let's move it over to the Village Pump so others can participate. :^) —Frecklefoot 16:41, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)

---

Fast!

wow.. that was fast .. your edit at Cisco Systems came half a minute after my submit. Jay 14:07, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Hope that's okay. I just saw it on Recent Changes. :^) —Frecklefoot 14:41, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

---

Wikification

Thanks for the links to free love and freeteens.org --Uncle Ed 20:53, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)

No problem. :-) I hope your weren't being sarcastic. It was a quick search on Google. —Frecklefoot 13:58, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't intend to sound sarcastic :-) Maybe I need to hit the keys more gently or something ^_^ --Uncle Ed 14:04, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)

It didn't sound sarcastic, but some users have gotten angry at me for touching "their" articles (see Irrelevant links above). I wasn't sure how you felt about "your" articles being modified (I personally love when my articles are enahnced by other users--that's what makes it wiki!) :-) —Frecklefoot 14:53, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)

On the contrary, I wrote Wikipedia:ownership of articles to protest the practice some users have of laying claim to certain articles. --Uncle Ed 21:32, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for that link! If it comes up again, I'll point them to it. —Frecklefoot 01:19, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)

---

Thanks for not Flaming

About your recent comments in response to JT's post on Talk:Temples of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: I commend you for your ability to ignore the inflammatory phrasing and get right to the heart of the matter. Well done. -- Cyan 23:06, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope the heat dies down on that article soon, but I doubt it will. So many of us have very strong opinions. :-S —Frecklefoot 15:45, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

---

Meta-article of Interest: Naming conventions (Mormon)

Given the inconsistency (including my own) and continued confusion on naming Church, Latter-day Saint and Mormon related articles and the use of similar terms in those articles, I've created the new meta-article to help normalize the convention. —B 17:15, Nov 12, 2003 (UTC)

---

Outer Darkness

Sorry about my recent rants about Outer Darkness but am curious if what I'm saying makes sense to you. It is a hard thing to explain. It's basically the name differences, not a shift in concepts. B seems to be busy, and I was hoping to get some feedback from him on how to write/word the issue.

Anyway, thanks for putting up with my asinine doctrinal issues. I know I'm more of a stickler than most, and I know I don't have a clue on most of the real issues. All I know is that many things we hold to as absolutes are speculation - not that they are wrong, just speculative. Visorstuff 20:20, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The current text of the Outer Darkness article makes sense to me and it lines up with what I've always understood. Perhaps we could add links to Celestial, Terrestial and Telestial Kingdoms in parantheses after "...and continue on to a Kingdom of God," but since no articles exist for them yet, there's really no point (right now).

The only thing I think we don't really sync up on right now is eternal progression. My view has been, after one dies, one goes to Spirit Prison or Paradise, depending on righteousness/baptimal state. In Prison (if one accepts the Gospel), one may pass on to Paradise if one's work is done for them (hence all the work we do in the temples). SPrison is not necessarily an unpleasant place (we really don't know AFAIK), but it's not as nice as SParadise.

My understanding was that SoPs would go to Outer Darkness after the Final Judgement. While awaiting judgement, they would be in Spirit Prison. However, this is not a big deal to me and I'm willing to accept whatever change you feel is correct. You seem to have a much better grasp on the scriptures than I do—I really haven't been reading them as much as I should lately (two conflicting commandments: have children, read your scriptures...). —Frecklefoot 20:49, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

K-you can delete this after you read it. I don't mean to put so much on your page.

Our understandings are the same as far as eternal progression (and the process), however, I am using the scriptural terms and you are using the "common mormon markup language." Let me try this in bullets, cause I really want you to understand where I'm coming from on this. Again, the idea is the same, just different names that what you hear in sunday school. However, what I use are the scriptural names.

• When you die you go to the spirit world. Which has two parts. The righteous go to a good place, the unrighteous to to a bad one. (I think we agree on this)
• If you recieve the gospel while in the bad place you can go to the good place so to speak. No word on if the division is geographical or not (I think we agree on this).
• According to D&C 138, the whole post-mortal spirit world is also called Spirit Prison (same place, just another name). It is called this because we don't have bodies. It is a good place. We just feel in bondage because we don't have bodies. The dead captive will arise and be made free at the resurrection. (138: 16 "the bands of death", 138:50 "looked on their long absence of their spirits from their bodies as a bondage," 138:29 Christ went to prison, but only to the unrighteous to organize missionary work). (we differ on the correct name of this place).
• The good place in the spirit world (or spirit prison) is called paradise (Alma 40:13) (we differ on the correct name of this place).
• Christ went to the spirit world or spirit prison (see 1 peter 3&4, 138:29), not to teach the wicked (the bad division), in "prison" (the whole post mortal spirit world), but to organize the righteous (paradise) in "prison" (the whole post mortal spirit world) to teach the gospel to those in the bad part of the spirit world (D&C 138).
• The bad place in the spirit world (or spirit prison) is called outer darkness (Alma 40:13)
• Alma taught that when you die you go to paradise or outer darkness (Alma 40:13)
• At the time of the final judgement, all will be resurrected (whether in the first or second resurrections)
• All will be assigned to various kingdoms of glory (celestial, terrestrial, telestial), except the sons of perdition.
• Sons of perdition go to a really bad place that most Mormons call "outer darkness." Although used by Mormons, the place is not named this. No one knows why they call it that. Nowhere in scripture or correlated materials is the words "outer darkness" used to discuss where the sons of perdition go. How this started, we don't know. One thing is for user - the term has been assigned a different connotation than it was meant or that was revealed, at it's never made it out of our vocabulary and will continue to stay a misconception for many more years.
• Joseph Smith said the place where sons of perdition go is called Gnolom.

Here are the mormon markup terms and the correct, scriptural terms

Common Mormon Markup Language=Scriptural term(s)

• Spririt World = Spirit World or Spirit Prison (same place)
• Paradise = Paradise
• Spirit Prison = Outer Darkness or Hell (same place)
• Outer Darkness = Everlasting punishment (D&C 76:44), Gnolom, Gnolaum.

In summary, my concept is the same as what you refer to as paradise or prison, however, I am using the correct scriptural terms. The chart we draw and the progression is the same, just different names. As stated on another page, according to church publications, one of the reasons why Section 138 was added to the D&C was to clarify that the post mortal spirit world is called spirit prison and to fix the "naming" misnomer.

References: Mormon Doctrine p551 for "Post-mortal Spirit World" is the same as "Spirit Prision" correlation. Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith p361, Mormon Doctrine p316 for Joseph Smith saying Gnolom is where sons of perdition go. He did not use the words "outer darkness"

Alma 40:11-14 11 Now, concerning the state of the soul between death and the resurrection—Behold, it has been made known unto me by an angel, that the spirits of all men, as soon as they are departed from this mortal body, yea, the spirits of all men, whether they be good or evil, are taken home to that God who gave them life.

12 And then shall it come to pass, that the spirits of those who are righteous are received into a state of happiness, which is called paradise, a state of rest, a state of peace, where they shall rest from all their troubles and from all care, and sorrow.

13 And then shall it come to pass, that the spirits of the wicked, yea, who are evil—for behold, they have no part nor portion of the Spirit of the Lord; for behold, they chose evil works rather than good; therefore the spirit of the devil did enter into them, and take possession of their house—and these shall be cast out into outer darkness; there shall be dweeping, and wailing, and gnashing of teeth, and this because of their own iniquity, being led captive by the will of the devil.

14 Now this is the state of the souls of the wicked, yea, in darkness, and a state of awful, fearful looking for the fiery dindignation of the wrath of God upon them; thus they remain in this estate, as well as the righteous in paradise, until the time of their resurrection.

D&C 76:25-38 25 And this we saw also, and bear record, that an angel of God who was in authority in the presence of God, who rebelled against the Only Begotten Son whom the Father loved and who was in the bosom of the Father, was thrust down from the presence of God and the Son,

26 And was called Perdition, for the heavens wept over him—he was Lucifer, a son of the morning.

27 And we beheld, and lo, he is fallen! is fallen, even a son of the morning!

28 And while we were yet in the Spirit, the Lord commanded us that we should write the vision; for we beheld Satan, that old serpent, even the devil, who rebelled against God, and sought to take the kingdom of our God and his Christ—

29 Wherefore, he maketh war with the saints of God, and encompasseth them round about.

30 And we saw a vision of the sufferings of those with whom he made war and overcame, for thus came the voice of the Lord unto us:

31 Thus saith the Lord concerning all those who know my power, and have been made partakers thereof, and suffered themselves through the power of the devil to be overcome, and to deny the truth and defy my power—

32 They are they who are the sons of perdition, of whom I say that it had been better for them never to have been born;

33 For they are vessels of wrath, doomed to suffer the wrath of God, with the devil and his angels in eternity;

34 Concerning whom I have said there is no forgiveness in this world nor in the world to come—

35 Having denied the Holy Spirit after having received it, and having denied the Only Begotten Son of the Father, having crucified him unto themselves and put him to an open shame.

36 These are they who shall go away into the lake of fire and brimstone, with the devil and his angels—

37 And the only ones on whom the second death shall have any power;

38 Yea, verily, the only ones who shall anot be redeemed in the due time of the Lord, after the sufferings of his wrath.

D&C 138: 28-30, 50-51 28 And I wondered at the words of Peter—wherein he said that the Son of God preached unto the spirits in prison, who sometime were disobedient, when once the long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noah—and how it was possible for him to preach to those spirits and perform the necessary labor among them in so short a time.

29 And as I wondered, my eyes were opened, and my understanding quickened, and I perceived that the Lord went not in person among the wicked and the disobedient who had rejected the truth, to teach them;

30 But behold, from among the righteous, he organized his forces and appointed messengers, clothed with power and authority, and commissioned them to go forth and carry the light of the gospel to them that were in darkness, even to all the spirits of men; and thus was the gospel preached to the dead.

50 For the dead had looked upon the long absence of their spirits from their bodies as a bondage.

51 These the Lord taught, and gave them power to come forth, after his resurrection from the dead, to enter into his Father’s kingdom, there to be crowned with immortality and eternal life,

---

Religion List Pages

I'm compiling a list of pages about various religion groups, including Scientology, Catholicism, Mormonism, etc. Would love your help qualifying/organizing the List of articles about Mormonism when you get a chance. Visorstuff 23:28, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I've looked at it and it looks good. If I see something that I think needs changing (or an addition), I'll make it. —Frecklefoot 15:44, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

---

Hi there. I wanted to make sure you were aware of the discussion going on here: User_talk:Eloquence#Book of Mormon_controversies and also to invite your comments on my latest proposal here: Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(Mormonism)#Solution? B 18:02, Dec 11, 2003 (UTC)

---

extraneous wikilinks?

What is an "extraneous wikilink"? Is there an official policy on this? My personal preference is for every word in the wiki to be linked. I think you might have already guessed that, from looking at my work :D Jack 18:13, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

This is funny! If you look at "Irrelevant links" above, you'll see that not too long ago I was accused of adding too many wikilinks in articles. I think the policy states something like "make wikilinks where appropriate to context of article." Some articles, of course, will have numerous wikilinks throughout the article. But your wikilinking of words like A and lowly were, IMHO, extraneous and didn't add to the article. I think the Wikipedia:Manual of Style might have something to say about links (but I didn't look). —Frecklefoot 19:01, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

---

"See also" format

According to the manual of style Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#See_also_and_Related_topics_styles, "When articles are long and do have headers, if the See also refers to the entire article, and not just a section, it should be a Header of Level 2 so that it properly appears in the table of contents". What was wrong with my edit? I know I got the previous edit wrong, due to a misreading of a discussion on the topic, but this is straight out of the manual. WormRunner 19:32, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC) (not logged in before, sorry)

Sorry about that. The style must have changed recently. It used to be if the "See also" section only had one or two links, it shouldn't be a section unto itself. I reverted to your version. —Frecklefoot 20:15, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Thanks, for the reversion and the explanation. WormRunner 20:23, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

---

Missing Links

I've noticed that the four or five people who regularly contribute to Mormonism pages have the tendency to leave Wiki links in for pages/concepts that we feel need to be addressed, but fail to create the page that the link points to.

I propose that we clean this up. I've compiled a list of pages that need to be added or unlinked. Going forward, if you add in a link for a page that you intend to create, please create a stub page and fill in the basic info or bullet outline of what you feel it should cover and then include it on the List of articles about Mormonism so we can all contribute and finish the pages quicker.

I’ve included a reference page for each subject/blank page, however, I found at least two or three similar Wiki links (or reference pages) that point to the same subject/blank page for most of the links. Visorstuff 22:31, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

URL format

I've noticed a couple of places where you've "unhidden" URLs: I think from reading the Manual of Style (particularly Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Style of External links section) that this is not the standard way of doing things. I am loath to simply revert the two instances I have noticed mostly because I expect these are not the only ones, and if you agree with me you'd be in a better position to know. (Let me know how coherent this is regardless of whether you agree :-) Phil 17:17, Jan 7, 2004 (UTC)

Okay, just read the Manual of Style entry on external link formats. I read that section on external links long ago. Back then, it said "simple" URLs should be left unformatted because unformatted URLs are more useful to readers when the articles are printed out. Now it looks like there's been a change in the software and URLs are always displayed when printed out (good change!). I'm glad to know this—I prefer the look of formatted URLs vs. unformatted, but I was just trying to change them to what I thought was wiki-convention. I'll go and revert my latest changes. Thanks for pointing out the error of my ways... :^) —Frecklefoot 17:42, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Albert Einstein vandalism

One person's persistent vandalism does not constitute a "controversy" that requires balance. If I insist that the moon is made of green cheese, that doesn't mean that the Moon page needs a "Lunar Cheese Controversy" section.

Dude, sorry, but it didn't look like vandalism to me. It looked like an opinion. If it really was hogwash, than it deserves to be deleted. If it has some merit (no matter how little), it deserves some mention. I didn't write it—I just tried to NPOV it. —Frecklefoot 20:08, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

Kelsey Grammer

You added a lot of content to the Kelsey Grammer article so I hope that means you can confirm this question. I am trying to disambiguate the link to "director". From the context, I guessed television director rather than film director or theatre director. If I guessed wrong, would you please fix? Thanks. Rossami 23:35, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The IMDb entry says it was for television. It says he directed several episodes of Frasier. I just added a link to his official site. —Frecklefoot 14:57, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

Smileys/Emoticons

You're absolutely right. IMHO all the content in "Smileys on the Internet" should be merged into Emoticon and be replaced with a link to Emoticon. Dpbsmith 17:27, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Okay, it will take some work. I won't attack it right now--I've got several things on my plate at the moment. —Frecklefoot 17:39, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

Lord o' Rings characters

Lotho and Rose are definitely real, figuring mostly in the Scouring of the Shire chapter. Tom....can't remember....may well be Rose's dad's name. I think they're legit. Jwrosenzweig 19:42, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

k, thanks. Just couldn't remember 'em all. :-) —Frecklefoot 19:45, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

Tag! You're it!

Hi - you need to tag your images - see Wikipedia:Image Tag Team for details. Thanks. Secretlondon 21:56, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Australian shepherd images

I just left a request for more info on the Talk:Australian Shepherd page. Thanks for looking at the page, BTW. Elf 17:39, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Could you see what the Australian Kelpie photos do for you? For some reason they move much more neatly around the page than the Aussies did when I shrink & expand the window, but I'm hoping you'll confirm they're OK for youze. Elf | Talk 23:21, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

They look great to me! —Frecklefoot 02:08, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC) Thanks. Elf | Talk 03:44, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

Moving pages

Thanks for the tip! User:Lukobe

No problem. It took me awhile to learn how to do a lot of things "correctly" with the 'pedia. Actually, it's an ongoing process! —Frecklefoot 18:11, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)

---

VfD

What's with the Vfd? Are you part of the sysop power structure? --Burrowing Troll

No, just a humble user. Are you referring to the article GodKing? It deserves to be deleted. —Frecklefoot 19:35, Apr 6, 2004 (UTC)

---

about recurring Wikipedia:links again

Hi - thanks for brushing up my contributions about Frasier. You deleted all links that appeard twice. I see that you had here some arguments about what should be made to Wikilinks. I have the same topic ;-) - perhaps its a sign that this question should be clarified somewhere.
Since the Wikipedia:Manual of Style isn't very specific, I (as newbie) would like to know if there is a common way this is handled. Personally I think that links that are twice dont do harm. On the contrary: when I have read a good way down, and just want to know more about a relevant word (even though I havn't found it interesting on the first occurence) it's more convenient to have it as link there. Otherwise I would have to scroll all the way up and find the first one - or look it up in the search.
I dont mean this only specific to the frasier-article - I just would like to know for further edits I do.
So, are there some rules? Or pages with more infos about this topic? If not, I find it a good idea if you (since you are a proven wikipedian) or someone else could clear this up, and add something to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style for new users. Well my vote would go for repeated links - but I could live with either way. Thanks Thomas 01:20, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I don't think there is a hard and fast rule for repeated Wikilinks, but the rule of thumb (which I learned via observation) is to not have repeated wikilinks once the item has already been wikilinked previously. Take a look at this for example:

Don Tom (September 1, 1922 - December 25, 1999) was an American actor. He was the son of actor Bill Tom and actress Donna Tom. Though and American, he was still generally considered a pretty good actor.

The redundant wikilinking of American and actor serve no purpose—the words were already wikilinked in the same paragraph. However, if you want to wikilink a phrase the first time it is used and then much further down in a long article, this should probably be fine. But for an article about something like Frasier, Kelsey Grammer is mentioned many times and generally one wikilink should suffice. For some articles, such as on an actor, I may wikilink a movie when discussing it in the article and have another wikilink for the movie in the actor's filmography.

Like I said, there is no hard and fast rule here. If you read the previous wikilink discussion, you can see that some wikipedians think I wikilink too much! So, use your best judgement. But redundantly wikilinking articles is generally discouraged. As for updating the manuals, I'm not an admin, so I can't update them. You may want to contact someone like Mav or Angela for that and/or further input. Take care. —Frecklefoot 14:15, Apr 9, 2004 (UTC)

I Want to be a Cowboy's Sweetheart

It wasn't supposed to be an article, but i got distracted in the process of writing the stub. Please see Page history and consider withdrawing the QD.
(BTW, have you considered archiving your 41K talk page?)
--Jerzy(t) 20:08, 2004 Apr 27 (UTC)

Retracted. Thanks for suggesting I archive this talk page—I didn't notice it was so large. At least I have it broken up into sections which can be easily edited. :-) —Frecklefoot 20:55, Apr 27, 2004 (UTC)

I know what you mean; i think my own was up around 50K when Angela pointed it out (i know i archived around 35). I emphatically applaud the sectioning (if only for the sake finding one's way). Besides the editting aspect, i'm a little amused to note that i looked at the length bcz the TOC dribbled off the bottom of my screen: the ToC is also a canary in the coal mine!

Tnx re "...Cowboy's...". My first thot, when i realized i'd done the second one into the article instead of the talk, was "Damn, now i've got to go get it deleted. (Ah, the irony of the universe!) I don't know how i'd have stood it if the stub i'd writ (to avoid the trouble of getting it deleted) got deleted. [grin].
--Jerzy(t) 21:43, 2004 Apr 27 (UTC)