User talk:Mckaysalisbury

Welcomes

Hello Mckaysalisbury and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

• To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
• Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
• If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
• Follow the Wikipedia:Simplified Ruleset
• Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
• Remember Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
• Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

You forgot to sign

Hi! Just a friendly note: You forgot to sign your vote on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Year 10,000 problem. You can sign your posts by entering four tildes (~~~~). — David Remahl 19:01, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I forgot to sign one, and within minutes, I get hammered ;)

;-). Happens to the best of us. — David Remahl 19:06, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

teh teh

You're welcome. Thanks for the kind words. Taco Deposit | Talk-o Deposit 12:43, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

Mars Desert Research Station front entry and greenhab.jpg

Hello. I moved this back to being the talk page for the image. Nice pic, BTW. I'm not sure exactly what you were wanting to do, but if you were trying to rename the image, I've got some bad news -- see renaming images. If that isn't what you wanted, you can probably find your answer in either HOWTOs Index or Modifying a Wikipedia page. SWAdair | Talk 01:52, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Relational database

Both the citations you gave are good examples of bad articles. They are both bad in a manner typical of technical articles: overly theoretical regurgitation of dull classroom lectures. No good purpose is served by their presence, but it is a daunting task to rewrite such a mass of verbiage -- so daunting that few attempt the Stygian task.

I intend to insert in Relational database a lucid description of the beast -- not the theoretical model, not a plug for FileMaker, but the thing itself, filmed as it were in the act. Is there a cabal of WPdians waiting to jump on me for this? — Xiong (talk) 02:28, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you feel my initial remarks were confrontational. My comments were directed more toward the discussion, not to the stub. I just took a look at the page history; it's a sight. For some abominable reason, this has been the focus of a long-running edit war; I gather considerable content has been written and removed. I guess there is a cabal.

Actually, the article itself, Relational database, isn't so bad. It's just way too short, a stub; almost a disambig where there should be a glorious article. The articles to which content seems to have been moved are just terrible. They don't need "work", but a complete overhaul. I do not intend to do that overhaul, either. But I do intend to put together a lucid article on the subject which, I imagine, interests most readers: relational databases themselves, not the theory which discusses them.

I hope you may be willing to lend a hand. — Xiong (talk) 07:10, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)

You and I are in perfect agreement, I think. I don't know where I'd be if I didn't have the power of a good RDBM tool -- FileMaker Pro. I came to the article, Relational database, by way of a desire to set WP firmly on the relational road -- I do not consider it to be there now.

Can't discuss RDB without laying the groundwork, so I've attacked the much simpler Flat file database first. Please let me know what you think. — Xiong (talk) (post facto)

Well... let me preface my reply by saying I've been somewhat abused by One-Thinger WPdians lately. Forgive me if I'm a little acrid or mistrustful. I don't know how well you know FileMaker Pro. It is greatly improved from the FileMaker of the Bad Old Days. I grant that it is unsuited for scaling up to a massive database, with hundreds of thousands of records and tens of thousands of queries per hour. It's a tool best used by anything from a single user up to a small company -- say, 1000 users, not all of whom access the DB at one time. But these are engine limitations, a statement of horsepower. And despite what I've said, I see FileMaker, Inc. is pushing their products into ever-larger companies.

I don't have the money, inclination, or need to upgrade to the latest version (7); let me note some of the features of mine (5.5):

• Fully customizable layouts -- Setting up a layout is as easy as drawing with a pen tool. Layouts -- forms, reports -- are almost too plastic. Fonts, colors, styles, borders are editable as a matter of course. Field formats -- besides a straight box full of text -- include menus, radio buttons, and check boxes, all of which use a value list that may either be static or dynamic. I especially like dynamic value lists. Field formats are tied to the layout in which they appear, as distinct from field types -- text, number, date, etc.

• Relationships -- Fields from a related file can be used in a layout just as if they were local to the master file, or inserted into a portal to display one-to-many relationships. So long as match fields ("keys", in SQL jargon) are properly defined, you can create and delete matching records in the related file from within the master file (if permitted).

• Lookups -- Data from a related file is copied to the master file one time only. E.g., a file containing invoices looks up prices for products. The actual prices may change later, but the prices shown in the invoice do not change.

• Self-joins (self-relationships) are possible. I've done some weird things with self-joins. I admit, sometimes I've broken it with this kind of stuff. But I've created solutions in which data typed into one record forces the creation of a related record in the same file.

• Any field (except media containers) can be calculated. Defining a field as a calculation opens a window and you type away. Fields from the master file and all related files are available as atoms from a menu, as are all functions. The functions themselves are so comprehensive that you can emulate nearly any spreadsheet. Of course, you can do much more.

Of particular note are the many calculation functions that return some aspect of system status. Status (CurrentPortalRow), for example, tells you where the user is. Or, you can fiddle with other DB files, as in FieldStyle (dbname, layoutname, fieldname). This returns a status word, depending on whether the target field is a straight text field, or perhaps a menu, or list of radio buttons.

• Fully scriptable -- Almost anything you can do at all, you can script. You can add or delete records, switch layouts, find, sort, print, etc.; you can define any object (including a displayed field!) as a button that invokes a script. I've done some weird things by defining a field within a portal as a button; FileMaker understands which related record the user has "pushed".

The script engine has been upgraded to allow for all the usual flow control functions. I've written several solutions that makes very heavy use of scripts; for a notable example, a slot machine that operates entirely within one record, resorting to a very complicated set of scripts whenever the "handle" is pulled. (The slot machine is also relational; there are, oh, IIRC, 2 related files, one with the reel icons, one with payoffs.) It's even possible to script SQL queries, to access foreign systems.

• Security -- I admit, security is not as robust as it might be. You can protect whole files or control access to certain layouts and certain fields. You can roll up a finished solution into a sort of kiosk mode and you have a lot of control over what the user can do; you can lock almost the entire UI out and replace whatever functions you like using scripts and buttons.

• Getting out of the box -- I'm not as interested in this as others may be, but FileMaker is "...Level 1 ODBC compliant, with limited Level 2 support." More interesting to me is the ability to publish solutions -- databases, with their layouts and their scripts -- on the web. This ability is unfortunately limited in my version; I gather that the more $expensive developer versions do much much more. Search for "filemaker hosting" -- I can host a simple solution right from my desktop, or pay somebody else to host it for me; it's a niche market. Pricey, too: FileMaker, Inc. is always sure to get a piece, by controlling the number of files that can be open at one time.

I intend to use FileMaker Pro to demonstrate RDB, not just because I like it, but because it's what I've got, and because its layouts and dialog boxes are so visual and easy to understand that they make good examples for someone not steeped in the subject. And, after all, if you already know all about RDBMS, you won't care to read a simple introduction to the subject.

FileMaker, Inc. is giving away a free 30-day trial. You might want to check it out, but I suggest you plan the 30 days for when you can afford the time to exercise the demo. Let me know if you plan to do this, and I will send you some old solutions and demos you can play around with. (It doesn't matter what box you're on; FM is almost totally transparently cross-platform). Who knows, you might decided to beg, borrow, steal, or even $buy it for yourself. — Xiong (talk) 15:00, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC)

James Earl Salisbury

Thanks! I just wanted to see what you thought and such. I gave some counter-feedback (or something like that). I'm glad you responded. =) — Indi ^{[ talk ]} 11:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Relational database 2

Hi, thanks for your interest in editing this article.

What we need is an article that bridges the gap between the mathematical terminology used in a strict definition of the relational model and the popular terminology used by people who work with relational databases. For instance, an explanation of the relationship between "relations" and "tables". At a minimum I feel this article should explain the terms covered in my attempted rewrite at Talk:Relational database/rewrite. When I suggested this rewrite many complained that it was not true to the relational model; since I am not an expert in the relational model I could not fix this problem and abandoned the rewrite.

If you have any other questions or concerns you can put them here; I have watchlisted you. --Ideogram 08:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

K, I'll put my response here, note, I copied your notice, and totally messed with it. Comments round one. Yeah, it's not perfectly in line with the realtional model:

• "This would result in a duplicate row, which is usually not allowed" In the mathematical definition (and in "truly relational databases"), it isn't allowed, but some (SQL i.e. non-relational) DBMSs allow it. This has strong correlation to primary keys "Most tables are created with primary keys." in SQL systems. In relational systems, all tables have at least one candidate key.
• "We are using the primary key of the organization table as a foreign key in the person table." "Primary keys" aren't technically part of the relational model. Keys are all some kind of constraint. Foreign Keys have to reference a Candidate key, and the primary key (if the DBMS supports it) is a good idea.
• I understand what you're trying to do with the relational integrity section, but could it be phrased in such a way that doesn't show a violation of a key, like saying "suppose we tried to delete row x".
• Normalization either needs to be pulled, or more detail should be included. It's a big leap from saying "data duplication" to "3NF"
• Joins, do we have to use SQL? I propose a relational Algebra. Maybe a translation in to SQL might be necessary (also, you're using MySQL variety, a SQL flavor that conforms to the SQL specifications would be better)
• Indexes are not really a part of the relational model (you admit this), so again, I'll say either more or less data. (oh, and saying "directly" is a bit of an oversimplification).
• No, Views *are* stored in the database, (unless the DBMS violates rule four of Codd's 12 rules)
• SQL is not part of the relational model, and so, doesn't really deserve a section like you mention it, and it is not a standard part of all relational databases.

Having said all of that, I think I still prefer the overall feel of the current relational database article. It might just be me liking the technical side of things, but I think the techinical stuff is the important part of the article. Simple English Wikipedia maybe? McKay 08:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

We don't have to start with my proposed rewrite as a base. I simply wanted to reference it as a list of terms that an article about Relational Databases should cover. If you prefer to use the current article as a starting point that is fine. What I'm trying to say (which other people didn't seem to understand) is that we need an article that talks about both the theory of the relational model and its implementation in modern relational databases, so that someone wondering "Why are Oracle, MySQL, and PostgreSQL all called relational databases?" can get an answer that isn't too mathematical. --Ideogram 08:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, you misunderstand the term. Oracle, MySQL, and PostgreSQL, are not relational databases. Some people call them Relational Database Management Systems, but relational databases they are not. The changes I made to the Relational database article today reference some of those differences (ordered rows and columns, three-valued logic...). But specific reasons as to why Oracle isn't "truly relational" belongs in RDBMS or Oracle. McKay 09:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I am quite familiar with the argument that relational databases are only those databases that conform to the relational model. I simply do not agree. Only theoreticians claim that my examples are not relational databases; the term is well-entrenched in popular usage.

Fundamentally this is a disagreement over terminology. However, the fact that Codd invented the relational model does not mean he owns the term. If you look at Talk:Relational database you will see my mention of a Google define: search that shows abundant evidence that the common usage of the term is not limited to databases that conform to the relational model.

As an encyclopedia it is not Wikipedia's job to prescribe correct usage of terms. We should be following the common usage and writing about what people expect to find when they are looking for an explanation of the term "relational database". --Ideogram 09:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

In summary, when someone asks "Why are Oracle, MySQL, and PostgreSQL all called relational databases?" (and in fact they are called such), the answer "They aren't really relational databases" is not helpful. --Ideogram 09:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstand me. Yes, I'm the kind of guy who doesn't think that Oracle (or any other DBMS that employs SQL as its primary DDL and DML) should be called relational. But, I understand that that is my point of view. It is a matter of fact that the world calles Oracle a Relational Database Management System. Therefore, the Wikipedia entry on Oracle should refer to it as a Relational Database Management System. And likewise, the Relational Database Management System article should reference Oracle as one of the most popular. So, yes, we disagree over termonology, but I don't think we disagree as to what the wikipedia article should say regarding this terminology. Namely that both camps are a valid way of looking at it. Codd created the term, Codd doesn't own the term, but Chris Date's Definition and Larry Ellison's definition should both be mentioned.

What I actually said was "Relational Database" does not equal "Relational Database Management System". The article in question is "Relational Database". What I actually said was that Oracle is a Relational Database Management System, but Oracle is *not* a Relational Database. Relational Databases can be created in Oracle though. McKay 09:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

For reference I duplicate from Talk:Relational database#starting on a rewrite the results of my Google search on "relational database" here.

• Introduction to Relational Database Design
• 15 Seconds: Introduction to Relational Databases
• Introduction to Relational Databases
• Definition from Whatis.com

All of these articles do not make a clear distinction between "Relational Database" and "RDBMS". I feel that all of these articles do a better job of answering the questions a typical novice will have about the term than the current Wikipedia article. Again, I invite you to do a Google search of define:relational database and see how many entries reference the relational model. I seem to recall there is only one other instance besides Wikipedia.

By my evidence you are still insisting on a definition of Relational Database that is at variance with its popular usage. --Ideogram 09:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

No, you're still missing what I'm saying.

• "Oracle ... is a ... relational database management system" [1]
• Oracle is *not* a Relational Database
• Oracle can be used to make Relational Databases [2]

McKay 09:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I'm missing what you are saying. If you read the articles I linked to you will see that they do not draw the distinction you are making. --Ideogram 09:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I think we're almost on the same page now. A Relational Database Management System enables you to build Relational Databases. But Relational Databases still store data. Example: At the last company I worked for, we had Microsoft SQL Server (an RDBMS). Using it, I created a Relational database that I called "ULS". This database stored data in it. Now, for how those links verify this:

• EDM/2 "A relational database stores all its data inside tables, and nothing more." If I also stored data in files in the file system. My collection of data could not be called a "relational database", because it stores data outside of tables.
• Whatis.com: "A relational database is a collection of data items organized as a set of formally-described tables" The ULS database has collected the data, and has organized the data into relational structures called tables, or relations.

McKay 10:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Consequently, google:"define:relational database management system" invariably describes software, or applications, it also references the term "database management system" and applies the "relational" adjective, and in some cases, lists commercial software applications. A relational database is a logical structure.

If I understand you correctly you want to call the Oracle software that creates the database an RDBMS and the actual collection of data the relational database. This distinction is not important to me. What I hoped to achieve by listing the links is to give examples of what I think any article on the term "relational database" should cover. Do you agree with that? --Ideogram 10:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, an RDBMS is an applicattion, software, code. A relational Database is a collection of Data, structures and data stored in memory. An RDBMS can monitor several Relational Databases. While this distinction may not be important to you, it is a valid and important distinction. This distinction is probably at least one thing that needs to go the relational database page. Some of the things mentioned in the articles you linked could be mentioned. Those articles are good references for the source material contained in the page. McKay 10:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

(outdenting) The Wikipedia article as it stands is woefully inadequate. It only explains relations, and a one sentence description of normalization. Do you agree that the topics listed in my example rewrite need mentioning? --Ideogram 10:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Relational Database has a template at the bottom mentioning the following subjects under "objects":

Trigger | View | Table | Cursor | Log | Transaction | Index | Stored procedure | Partition

If I were to do a brief outline, I'd do something like this

1. Definitions
   1. Simple
   2. Formal / Mathematical
2. Prerequisites (Horrible section header name)
   1. Briefly cover Database
   2. Briefly cover Relational Model
3. Objects
   1. Table
   2. View (Relvars in general?)
   3. Constraints
      1. Superkeys / Primary Keys / Candidate Keys
      2. Foreign Keys
      3. Other constraints
         1. Table and column constraints
         2. Transition Constraints
   4. Stored Procedures (and other "code", like triggers)
   5. (Indexes?)
4. Normalization?

DDL and DML should be covered in RDBMS, and that should cover all of the topics you had in your rewrite, and in the original article.

Transactions, Logs, Cursors, (indexes?, ) and partitions should all be covered in DBMS or RDBMS.

What do you think?McKay 10:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

K, In any case, I'm going to bed. I'll get any further messages in the morning.

I think if you could write an article following this outline that would be great. Good night. --Ideogram 10:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I spent the morning writing this up. it is available at User:Mckaysalisbury/Relational database for your perusal. Comments and suggestions are welcome. Obviously, it could use the "see also"s and "external link"s available on the current version of the page. It could probably use some references, but I didn't really look anything up. All this was basically from the top of my head. So someone should probably go thorugh and find valid references for the thigns that I said?McKay 20:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Provo, Utah

Well, I'm still puzzled by something. What 2000 data are you referring to on that page? The data from List of cities in Utah (by population) was (and I guess still is) based on 2005 estimates from the Utah Population Estimates Committee. What 2000 info are you talking about? Also, the 1RR isn't a rule, and I felt like I could explain myself well enough on the edit summary, so I felt no need to bring up the discussion on the talk page. Also, I'm wondering what exactly you meant by your last sentence? It doesn't really make sense to me. Generally, your entire post doesn't make sense...I need clarification of what you're trying to say. bob rulz 08:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I think I know what you're saying. However, the estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau actually aren't more recent; the UPEC estimates are for October 2005, while the Census Bureau estimates are for July 2005. It's just that the UPEC estimates are released earlier, because they only have to do Utah estimates while the Census Bureau does estimates for the whole country. However, while the accuracy of either of them is debatable (the Census Bureau doesn't have the greatest track record for accuracy), the Census Bureau is official, and using Census Bureau estimates maintains consistency throughout the entire country. I think we should use Census Bureau estimates for the sake of them being official. I was updating the information last night when I completely screwed everything up and didn't have the patience to fix it...so I just gave up. I might update it today. bob rulz 23:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

University of Michigan

If you check out E.F.Codds entry here you will see that he got his doctorate from Michigan in the late 60's. His work with the database group there led to the development of Micro, a relational database management system. Micro was used by acadmics at Michigan, Alberta and Wayne State Universitys to manage microdata.

As that this system lived and died before the internet existed, no documentation regarding it will be easily found on the net. There are of course dank and spider infested physical archives. What from these physical archives do you need?

Robert Bressan 14:00, 8/2/2006

I've found a link int the ACM journal documenting a system in production existing 1972. [3] Association for Computing Machinery SIGIR Forum archive Volume 7 , Issue 4

Do you have other problems with incorperating this change or shall I go ahead?

Bressan 17:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC) Robert Bressan

Leet

You're going to need a better reason then "This page sucks" to add all of those templates to Leet. In fact, doing so again without said reason, it will probably belooked at as vandalism. tmopkisn ^tlka 06:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I made a post to the talk page. Finished about 10 minutes after I made the changes to the leet page. Give me some time! WP:AGF McKay 06:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, your post to the talk page didn't really explain anything. "This page sucks, so I added some this page sucks templates." Oh, and don't worry about it, you've got all of the time in the world. tmopkisn ^tlka 06:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

A longer explanation has been given, but I don't think I'm up to keeping up with the edit count on leet, particularly with people who don't WP:AGF, so I'm out. I'll focus my energies elsewhere. McKay 07:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation, and I'm sorry to have upset you. But, do what you must, I won't be stopping you... tmopkisn ^tlka 08:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

StarCraft Ghost "revert"

Hello. You have sent me a message about a revert about the StarCraft: Ghost article. I didn't revert anything, although I did add the category "vaporware" to the end of the article, since, the game fits the parameters of vaporware. If games that had actual demonstrations but have had a long and protracted development cycle, like the video game S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Shadow of Chernobyl have vaporware tags on them, why not apply these tags to StarCraft Ghost? StarCraft Ghost has been announced for a while, and it has yet to materialize as a real product. - XX55XX 19:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Periodicity

Sorry to bother. If you have questions regarding authenticity, please use the internet archive. The information is freely available and has been for a long time. The subject is current and you are right there is a better way to explain this. Wish I had the time. Will start working on it though, could you please add whatever to the information, but don't delete as it is timely and relevant. Thank you. This was added by anon user User talk:71.215.54.11

Sorry for messing up your page, I really don't know how to let you know things.

google 1ceres

yahoo 1ceres

There is a definitive publication regarding

1ceres as a planet and the periodicity

It may not be in as organized a manner that is preferrable

but, it beats Science.com HANDS DOWN regarding the subject.

You aren't looking.

Try the archive, and 1ceres is the most popular web site for 1ceres.

And, until redefinition becomes accepted 1ceres is the name of the object.

I am again sorry to display it this way. But, it has been open for debate for a long time.

thank you. This was added by anon user User talk:71.215.54.11

Scrum (rugby)

I've had a go at making the introduction more user friendly. Sometimes it takes somebody from outside to point out what all the 'experts' miss.

What I think may have confused you is the term 'set scrum', this term is archaic and is not any use to the article - I have deleted it.

What is more confusing but cannot be avoided is that there are two different sports called 'rugby'. They differ from each other much more than US and Canadian football do. Both have scrums but the scrums are quite different, but there is only one type of scrum in each sport.GordyB 22:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Black hole (disambiguation) and Micro black hole

RVs are only ment for own editorial work, so who is doing the vandalism? And please check your references about micro black holes because the new adapted name is "black hole analogies".(Scientific American, December 2005, An echo of Black Holes), [4] --Quasarq 21:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I see some investigation is done by a computer freak. Nevertheless you are right at some point. Hawking named: mini black holes. "Black hole analogy" is a newer term for a quantum phenomena which is a smaller definition. But my reference is right, a "Black hole analogy" IS a mini black hole (not reverse). I change it again because most probably you don't have the scientific literature. I know my points are controversial but very often I'm right in the end because I base most of my work on WP:VERIFY and WP:REF. And please can you change my work back because evidently you just based your conclusions on opposite opinions. High regards. --Quasarq 22:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

o YES, you refer WP:MOS. As I'm not an English native, you better help in this regard instead of RVs, because we share the interests of black holes apparently --Quasarq 22:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

87.211.151.42

See also: User talk:87.211.151.42. You will probably need to look at the page's history, as he likes to delete messages sent to him.

I deleted your "id". See Help:Talk page --87.211.151.42 16:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It states clearly: Help:Talk page Etiquette Most users treat their user talk pages like regular talk pages, and archive the contents periodically to a personal subpage — either when the page gets too large, on a regular schedule, or when they take a wikivacation. Others delete comments after they have responded to them. (I boldened) I realize other pages say otherwise but I stick in this context to this.

The policy WP:FAITH Assume good faith is apparently strange to you, as I was just trying to write something and was accused of vandalism. As long as you do not apologize I assume you continue to invade the space at the IP address and continue to harass that page. There is no policy that states I have to create an account. So the IDs you label are at your own account. --87.211.151.42 18:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Minor planet numbers

The Minor Planet Center (MPC) (and yes, wikipedia *does* have a link to it) is the official minor planet naming and numbering service - and they operate under the auspices of the International Astronomical Union - the science's "governing body". The MPC release electronic circulars (and MPEC refers to Minor Planet Electronic Circular) about various topics - including minor planet/comet discoveries, minor planet/comet naming, and also regularly updated orbital elements and coordinates. Searching google for "Minor Planet Center" received 233,000 links. The IAU's website says that "When the orbit of a Minor Planet becomes well enough determined that the position can be reliably predicted far into the future (typically this means after the Minor Planet has been observed at four or more oppositions), the Minor Planet receives a permanent designation - number issued sequentially by the Minor Planet Center, for example (433), (4179) or (50000)."

So it's clear that the IAU believes that the MPC is the official numbering service for minor planets.

The MPC IS notable - it holds the definitive source catalogue for all minor planets. Richard B 12:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Fibonacci number

Yes. I know the 3Revert rule. Can you pls tell what you mean by "Malcontent". How can one single word supported by a reference can be called as "Malcontent". I am also curious to know your feelings about this.Bharatveer 05:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)Bharatveer 05:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Mckay, Pls see the talk page of Fibonacci number.-Bharatveer 14:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

AVL_tree

Could you pop over to the AVL tree discussion page and respond to my comments, please. Toby Douglass 11:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

QM

Thanks. I usually do just make changes myself, but my limitations are mainly in communication, so it is often better to make suggestions. I did change the first paragraph in the QM article to include E&M early when I was here, and my changes remained for quite a while. Now it may be worse than before I worked on it. I was just saying to my wife "At least maybe some of the other authors are learning from me." David R. Ingham 06:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

In a case like this where my changes have been reverted (after a long time), it is better to make discussion first. I no-one answers I feel confident in making changes. David R. Ingham 06:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Provo

Those were filters I added. I originally had it set to change LDS Church to the full name, but I figured some people wanted to keep it shortened, so I simply set it to avoid redirects.

Although the LDS Manual of Style doesn't mention this, I like to use the full name of the church for the first instance on each article, with shortened versions thereafter, and I try to avoid redirects in general. Also note that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints requests that the term LDS Church not be used.

As to the easter egg effect, that doesn't apply here since LDS Church already redirected to the same page. The page on piped links is here: Wikipedia:Piped link, although it doesn't appear to be a policy per se, and I'm pretty sure I have not violated it. Although now that I look it over I have seen it violated several times in other articles. --Lethargy 01:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Update: I did find Wikipedia's policy for redirects which states that redirects don't necessarily need to be avoided, so I'll need to start complying with that. In this particular case, it is probably best to just unlink LDS Church since there is already a link for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints with a note that LDS Church is an alternate. Anyway, I'll try not to step on your toes again. :) --Lethargy 02:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

E.F. Codd

Thanks for your comments about my edit of the article. I have added a reference to the source. Janm67 16:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Category:IAU planet debate

I found an explanation for your creation of Category:IAU planet debate after I nominated the category for deletion. I agree that it was useful in the short term, but I really think it should be deleted and the articles should be shifted into other categories. Do you have any ideas on what needs to be placed within new categories, if anything? Category:Dwarf planets seems like an appropriate place to collect many of the articles that are central to this discussion (the objects in question, the lists, and the debate page itself). Is any additional categorization needed for the peripheral articles (most of which appear in some other appropriate category, such as Category:Trans-Neptunian objects)? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dr. Submillimeter (talk • contribs) 21:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

Battle.net

I noticed your recent edits to Battle.net. I understand the edits you made may be more correct in American English, they are not necesarily more correct in British English, and WP has a policy of leaving things that are correct in one locale. Personally, I don't care, and I'm only telling you because the Brit's can get pretty angry for changing these kinds of things. Good luck and have fun in WP! McKay 15:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me about my Battle.net edits.

System.out.println("Wow, you know a great number of programming languages!");

System.out.println("I only know java.");

s d 3 1 4 1 5 final exams! 23:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Cool, glad I can help. Oh, your user page looks broken in IE, do you care if I tweak your user page to fix it? Merry Christmas (with a little Java present for you). McKay 05:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It would be nice if you could tell me about the changes you would make to my page beforehand. My page, in any case, is best viewed in Mozilla Firefox. That bit of Java was great! However, I don't know if this is a problem for you, 'Out' should be 'out' since Java is case-sensitive. Happy editing and happy programming! s d 3 1 4 1 5 final exams! 12:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

happy holidays!

File:Julekort.jpg

Wishing you a Happy Holidays
from s d 3 1 4 1 5 Happy Holidays!! 14:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your signature! sign here • HAPPY HOLIDAYS! — s d 3 1 4 1 5 12:58, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Wei-Hwa Huang

I restored the usage of {{US-sport-bio-stub}} to that article. As used by the Stub Sorting project, sports includes people involved in mental competitions as well as physicals ones. If that seems strange, let me point out that while not part of the Olympic Games, billiards, bridge, and chess are all non Olympic Games sports recognized by the IOC so we're not the ones who originated the idea. Caerwine Caer’s whines 05:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I've made some changes to the sport article to indicate the broader uses of the term (with links and references), while keeping the primary focus of that article on physical sports. Caerwine Caer’s whines 21:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

nullarbor demoparty

Hi, the demo party article has been nominated for deletion, and I would appreciate it if you would be able to add your input to the article and discussion. Thanks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullarbor_(demo_party) -- Aboeing

Thanks for your help :) Much appreciated.

-- Aboeing 17:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

spelling

You might want to double-check the box at the head of your user page. 3rd line. DGG 05:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks McKay 15:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Beast (disambiguation)

What I did, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages):

• I moved {{wiktionarypar|beast}} to the top of the page, and removed {{TOCright}}, as there was only one "section"
• I removed items without articles, and "Beer nickname for Milwaukee's Best," which seemed dubious.

—tregoweth (talk) 16:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Removing the italics was my mistake -- I misremembered a MoS note about links on disambig pages, and thought that they were supposed to be presented without extra formatting. —tregoweth (talk) 22:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

MDRS

Looking through the 50 some 'Landmarks of f00', there is a mishmash of stuff--like anything that might attract people. 'Government of f00' did not look right, but could be. 'Economy of foo' that I am now creating for each state might work. There is no 'f00 science' set of categories and--from my inspection of all the states I don't think there is much to put there. Your thoughts? Thanks Hmains 04:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I have it! 'Buildings and structures in Utah' It must be a structure. Hmains 05:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Done! Thanks for pleasant conversation. Hmains 03:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Pilgrimage (demo party)

revert. Redlinks are appropriate. Encyclopedic articles could be written, but they haven't been written yet.

The article for Northern Dragons has just been deleted by Proposed Deletion. I don't see how a Polygony article could ever survive WP:NOTABILITY as the only notable thing they did was to organize Pilgrimage. A search for PartyMeister reveals this is the only article which even mentions it, so, while it's more likely to be created as an article than Polygony, I wouldn't expect that to happen either. --Vossanova ^o< 21:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

136.2.1.101

Comments left for IP addresses that are clearly marked as shared are very unlikely to be received by the correct person. 136.2.1.101 10:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: BlizzCon

You're welcome, and thank you for inspiring me to make the edits! - fmmarianicolon | Talk 02:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Wii Health (AfD discussion)

• Moved to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wii Health
• Moved to User talk:Quarl
• Moved to Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 13 § Wii Health

• I was actually just reading the DRV myself, but I appreciate your notice on my talk page. Leebo⁸⁶ 19:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Wii Play cover art

I really do not think that a straw poll is the right way to solve the issue of cover art in computer games issue. Given that the game has just been released in North America, I'd assume a definite increase in popularity of the article and its talk page from American users. This issue affects more than just Wii Play, indeed, a similar scenario has just happened at Kororinpa: Marble Mania, which also involved a page move with a vandalised redirect (although I'm ashamed that after an admin reverted the unilateral move, I too vandalised the redirect).

I am pretty liberal on my use of cover art. Indeed, I can understand what Tim means when he says "the version shown does not matter", I have personally uploaded cover art from American and European versions of games (Psychonauts and The Ship (computer game) are some examples). I was involved in Yoshi's Universal Gravitation page move, yet did not change the American cover art. I've clarified my own position at WT:CVG#Cover_Art_question_-_Wii_Play, but similar to Naming conventions, and Manual of Style dictations, unless there's an overwhelming reason why the original was inaccurate, it should be left as is. - hahnchen 00:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Orem, UT

My edit was not a test edit, nor was it of a "sandbox" nature. I removed Tahitian Noni International from the list because it did not come from Orem. It was originally founded in Lindon, and is currently headquartered in Provo. Neither of these facts qualify it as coming from Orem, hence its removal from the list. User_talk:70.58.32.173

Noni

{{helpme}}

I've got a problem with vandalism on Noni. If I revert again, I'll be violating WP:3RR. There are the exceptions of obvious vandalism, but I don't think it qualifies as obvious vandalism, so I've decided not to revert again. There was one user User:Mpfox2006 who I reverted a few times, and put the {{test3}} template on, so I think he created User:Eddie200700000 as a sockpuppet. McKay 20:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I see you've already posted at WP:AIV, which is what I was going to suggest. Let's see where that gets you. I'll check back. —Xhantar^Talk 20:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Eddie200700000 is likely a suckpuppet of Mpfox2006. Both accounts have made similar edits, and only to Noni. I'm reporting at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. Also removing your {{helpme}}; I'll watch this page and follow up (you can reply here). —Xhantar^Talk 20:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:SSP is a good idea, but I wanted a quicker resolution because there was vandalism that I was trying to get resolved. WP:SSP is notable for its slowness, and usually for having a ginormous backlog. :D McKay 20:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Mpfox2006 and Eddie200700000 have been blocked indefinitely. —Xhantar^Talk 21:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello !

I am grateful to see a stand at Mario, and I suspect the article will stay. There is no clear consensus to have it removed. I am new and just beginning to learn, but the learning curve progress gets cloudy for me, when I am forced to fight personal attacks rather than substantive debate. Thank you for your clarification of issues and help at the line. I am done with that case, but not with Wikipedia. Thanks again, Lee Nysted 12:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Elevator surfing

Thanks for the prompt input re: the addition I made to the vladding article. Unfortunately, there is no published source; these long-ago episodes of college dorm elevator surfing were led and participated in by yours truly. While I realize this appears to contravene the Wikipedia guidelines on reliable sourcing (and I gave thought to the admonition that sometimes it is better to have no information than unsourced information), I thought it important to indicate that this form of vladding goes back at least thirty-odd years. Cheers, Jhw57 12:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Although I appreciate the well-meaning suggestion, I'm not about to travel thirty years back in time and start writing articles for college newspapers to satisfy the vagaries of someone's interpretation of WP:VERIFY. Further, I doubt that any college newspaper would publish an article about the origins of elevator surfing for fear of being seen as encouraging such activities. I will have to leave the detailed origins of elevator surfing in the dark. That being said, I am going to edit the unsourced clause about the sport having its origins in urban exploration. There is a reference to an individual's web page that provides some detail on elevator surfing, but it is merely partly entitled "Urban Exploring Techniques" with no further reference to urban exploration. The individual at least indicates that his interest arose from his undergraduate experiences. [User:Jhw57|Jhw57]] 04:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Another AfD for mini game lists

Another AfD for the MP minigame lists has started, we will appriciate your help as you proved decisive in the previous Afd. Follow Articles for deletion/List of Mario Party 3 minigames|this link and help the continued existence of these articles. Henchman 2000 09:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

There's also one for the MP2 list. Bowsy ^{(review me!)} 09:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Just an FYI... I adjusted this. The AfD was actually closed as No Consensus not a Keep. Yeah, the end result is the same, but it is an important distinction. Generally I refrain from editing other's comments, so I hope you don't mind too much.--Isotope23 15:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I am confused! ? The Mario 3 closed because the nomination was withdrawn. Is that unusual? Lee Nysted 21:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

What about the Mario 2 AFD? Does that one stay up? It would seem prudent for an Admin. to speedy keep it until further notice? Thanks for the info.Lee Nysted 23:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion

I believe you are making a mountain out of a molehill. Someone moving lengthy comments from a vote-like page to its talk page is not out of the ordinary or a punishment. If you will look at, say, most current AFD discussions you will see that most comments are quite short. In the future if you want to make a comment of multiple paragraphs, you might consider writing a short version for the main page and linking to a longer essay in the talk page. Grouse 22:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

There may not be any such policy. Not every action on Wikipedia is according to policy, and not everything an admin does is as part of their administrative role. It is custom, not policy. Grouse 22:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

User Boxes

I really need help with making one of my own and i tried the wikipedia:user boxes or whatever thing but it confused me :( so can you help me make one please. Robert Coombs 22:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Robert Coombs

Alright thank-you for your help.

Mario Party 8

I "ignored" the warning because it was no longer relevant. Nintendo officially issued a release date for the game. There is a big difference between citing an official release date and vandalizing the page with speculative dates. Zomic_13 14:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
EDIT: My apologies for accidentally putting this on your user page instead of your talk page initially.Zomic_13 14:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Black hole electron

The equations below are easily verified to be approximately correct. If the last equation is numerically correct, then all are numerically correct.

2Gm/c squared = 2/3(Le/4pi)(Le/2L3)squared

Gm/c squared = 1/3(Le/4pi)(Le/2L3)squared

m = (c squared/3G)(Le/4pi)(Le/2L3)squared

G = (c squared/3m)(Le/4pi)(Le/2L3)squared

The (L3) value is (2pi)squared times one light second while (Le) is the electron Compton wavelength. Do you see any way to add some of this information to the "B h electron" article without being too speculative ? DonJStevens 18:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The electron is a balanced configuration with additional properties that match the Le/2L3 ratio. Other length dimensions have the same ratio as shown.

Le/2L3 = L2/L3 = L1/L2 = L4/L1

L1 = 2pi(3/2)exp 1/2, times (Planck length)

L4 = 2pi(3Gm/c squared)

Compliance with these ratios restricts the electron mass to one specific value. Gravitational potential determines the blue shift ratio L1/L2.DonJStevens 16:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Tiger (disambiguation)

Thanks for noting WP:MOSDP in your edit summary. That helped me figure out where I went wrong so I could go back and clean up a batch of dab page changes I just made. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 22:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

WikiLoco help

{{helpme}}

We've got a vandal. User:WikiLoco. He really isn't contributing well to the pages he edits. Sure, some of his edits are fine, but many of his edits have been deemed as inappropriate. As per the comment at the top of WP:ANI I posted a notice to WP:AIV. The response I got there was that because it wasn't "obvious" cases of vandalism, that it should go on WP:ANI. So, I made a post to ANI to which no one responded. This is very frustrating, because it's taken a lot of effort to do the right things, but I feel like not only am I getting nowhere, I'm not even getting constructive criticism. McKay 13:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's adminstrators are all volunteers, so sometimes nobody picks up on something. ANI was the right place, but unfortunately something else major came up around then, and so nobody noticed. If the behaviour continues, I suggest posting again to ANI; there probably isn't much else that can be done, and I hope you have better luck next time (if you point out that your previous comments were ignored, hopefully you'll at least get a reply...) --ais523 13:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I was checking up on this, and it seems that the administrators mostly ignored the issue again, unfortunately. (There's nothing much that can be done about that, unfortunately; I've had similar frustrations before.) The user in question has now received a final warning, though, so if they vandalise again soon (within approximately the next 24 hours), WP:AIV is more likely to work, and if they vandalise again later you can give them a final warning yourself ({{subst:uw-vandalism4}} or {{subst:test4}}, depending on your preference). I'm not an admin myself, so there's nothing else I can really fo about this. Hope that helps! --ais523 09:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems you are doing well, but I'm too new to see if this has not been looked at by some admins. Actually, I found you through his page (he added a release date for a Dragon Quest game that has not been announced, no problems yet, but I'll tell you if it develops into something ugly). BTW, it'd be nice if you could help in Dragon Quest, that is, if you have sources; most DQ articles lack sources, but that's because they are hard to come by and/ or translate... Gracias. Nos seguimos viendo. Icecypher 16:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Reply

It survived one: the other was withdrawn due to it being too soon. No consensus certainly isn't a decisive keep in any way. It's been about a month: and no major changes have been made to the articles to make them seem not like a game guide/how to play guide. 8 is the only exception, since the game isn't out yet. But when the game comes out: I can bet it will turn into a game guide as well. Keeping that article (over the others, if they happen to get deleted in a new AFD..), wouldn't make much sense, as it's the same type of list: a mini-game fancruft guide. RobJ1981 21:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Afd for List of Mario Party minigames

There is an AfD for the above article here, if you would like to participate. Henchman 2000 18:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Is there any good reason for this: [5]. Stating your point one time is just fine, but flooding the AFD with responses that are the same to many people is very disruptive. RobJ1981 04:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

More unnecesary Afds

In case you haven't already noticed, there is an unnecessary AfD for the List of Mario Party Advance minigames, here. Henchman 2000 09:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Beast Disambiguation

Hey, you reverted a change I made on the contemporary usage of the word beast. It's very general information and wikipedia shares many things with wiktionary. Just because it technically belongs in wikitionary, doesn't mean it doesn't belong in wikipedia as well. The contemporary usage of the word beast does belong in the disambiguation page. Bubbleboys 03:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. It wouldn't belong in any "beast" article. The only place it belongs is the disambiguation page. It's also too short to justify an article. Not to mention, just look at other disambiguation pages. They're dotted with information similar to the contemporary usage I'm trying to put in. Bubbleboys 22:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

AfD

There is an AfD for every LMPmgs that still exists going on at the moment. Henchman 2000 18:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for nothing in the AFD, however, I am going to do a WP:DRV as there was no *consensus* to delete, and the AfD hadn't ran for its full time. Henchman 2000 18:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

That comment really wasn't necessary. RobJ1981 19:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

It violates WP:CIVIL. People don't have to participate in any any part of Wikipedia if they don't want to. — Malcolm^{Use the schwartz!} 22:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Forgive

Considering I didn't realize at first what you were apologizing for and had to go look for it, it's not a big deal. Thanks, and happy editing. >Radiant< 13:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Turns out you reverted yourself while I was asleep, so I found only the new version in the morning :) >Radiant< 13:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of James Earl Salisbury

I've nominated James Earl Salisbury, an article you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that James Earl Salisbury satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion; I have explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Earl Salisbury and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (<nowiki>TeckWizBot 23:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)</nowiki>). You are free to edit the content of James Earl Salisbury during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Arkyan &#149; ^(talk) 16:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Backup your articles

Don't forget you can also add your articles to http://genealogy.wikia.com and findagrave.com. You can also add your dad to your own user space. If you need help contact me. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 04:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

James Earl Salisbury

Just so you know, digging through some back and forth commentary on multiple talk pages between a few people about the MP deletions, I stumbled onto this article you had written. I'm actually taking your side pretty vigourusly on this one, its well referenced and notable. Anyway, I just wanted to let you know that it was me being absolutly fascinated by something I saw, not any malicious wikistalking, and that its nice to be on the same side on something finally :) -M^ask 20:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your comments on my talk page, I believe you did interpret my opinion corerctly. I have to agree with you in saying that it is disappointing when you see people making straight up or down votes, "Keep per so-and-so" or "Delete per nom". I do believe a valuable part of the AfD proces is helping to determine a consensus on what does or does not qualify as notable and so-on, and constructive debate on the process helps. Although we do have processes and policies and guidelines to help us, things like notability remain subjective and require some consensus to decide what the prevailing opinion is. For what it is worth I appreciate your work in improving the article rather than just claiming it is notable without any effort to show it, or waiting for someone else to fix it for you. This one really is a borderline case, and I'll go by whatever the consensus is on the matter, so don't worry about me reappearing in a few months to renominate the article if I don't like the outcome. Cheers, Arkyan &#149; ^(talk) 18:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review

There is a proper outlet for the concerns you are raising and it's deletion review. Rather than your user page and the closing admin's talk page, that's where it should be presented. By the way, my suggestion was to merge it, as I felt was appropriate -- and you did that. I don't think my concern was unsubstantiated. Leebo ^T/C 21:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Bringing it up on his talk page is not a bad thing, I was really talking more about your user page. It's just effort better directed toward deletion review. Leebo ^T/C 21:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Database normalization

Hi, I notice you removed the third bullet point in this section (1NF):

• A table must be guaranteed not to have any duplicate records; therefore it must have at least one candidate key.
• There must be no repeating groups, i.e. no attributes which occur a different number of times on different records. For example, suppose that an employee can have multiple skills: a possible representation of employees' skills is {Employee ID, Skill1, Skill2, Skill3 ...}, where {Employee ID} is the unique identifier for a record. This representation would not be in 1NF.
• Note that all relations are in 1NF. The question of whether a given representation is in 1NF is equivalent to the question of whether it is a relation.

Your comment indicates that you think the third bullet point is incorrect and, more specifically, that it contradicts the second. Could you clarify? Chris Date has written (in "Database In Depth", page 16) that "relations are always normalized (equivalently, they're in first normal form, 1NF)". See http://searchoracle.techtarget.com/searchOracle/downloads/Database_in_Depth_Chapter_1.pdf. A relation by definition cannot contain duplicates, and a relation by definition has fixed headings.

Also see Bill Kent: "First normal form excludes variable repeating fields and groups. This is not so much a design guideline as a matter of definition. Relational database theory doesn't deal with records having a variable number of fields." http://www.bkent.net/Doc/simple5.htm ... this is what my second bullet point is getting at.

Would you agree therefore that the material about all relations being in 1NF can be reinstated? --Nabav 16:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Problem

I agree with you that the information is historically accurate that Young was part of the First Presidency. The problem with the link is that the page linked describes the First Presidency from an LDS POV that is not concurrent with the beliefs of The Church of Jesus Christ. Linking information from our page to a page that does not support our belief system is not something we want to do. We want the page to reflect our beliefs in the most neutral way, however with the different beliefs and distinctions of the different restoration factions we must always present in a way that accurately portrays what we believe. I hope this clairifies why I unlinked the phrase. It was not an attack on the historical accuracy but a clarification and distinction of belief. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.149.72.72 (talk) 19:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

Sorry I forgot to sign my talk

JRN 19:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Distinctions

It is correct that it does cover the 12 apostles at the time of Brigham Young, but there needs to be a distinction of that for the link. To link to a page with a majority of information that is irrelevent and contradictory to the beliefs of the other page to clarify a minor point doesn't seem correct. Linking to the LDS page with pictures of the LDS apostles makes it seem like we are in some way connected to the LDS and that is incorrect. Is there possibly another neutral page that just explains that first presidency at the time of the split? JRN 20:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)