User talk:Quintessent
fr:Discussion Utilisateur:Quintessent
I changed the link ecology back to écologie. I don't see what makes you think the equivalent in french is environment. It is definitly not imho. Please, could you explain what made you do that ? If you did that because you found a broken link (an empty page), please be aware many french articles beginning with an É had their links broken. I already fixed some of them such as Écosystème or Écorégion, but not all of them yet. user:anthere -- but thank you for helping :-)
- I agree that écologie=ecology. I was looking for a good equivalent to link environnement to. It may have been the wrong decision, but I chose to link ecology to environnement because they were both very fleshed out in their respective languages, and therefore filled a similar role. The others, on the other hand, were basically stubs. It was a rather tentative decision, so I really don't mind you changing it again. -Q
- euh, the french article on environnement is very much a work in progress right now. I just did a rough introduction, and it is mostly a repository of links. The article on ecologie on the other hand is a two handed work beginning to be reasonnably decent. Linking "environnement" is a bit of a problem as english doesnot really give it the same sense as we do; and as you said, the english one is a stub. Anybody would bother to give it more flesh ?
Belated greetings. There is a lot of work to be done on LDS topics. Do you know of any game plan for adding NPOV contributions to these topics? You are the only registered wikipedian I know of at this point who has any knowledge in this area (besides me) and could present it from NPOV. I really don't want to get into pointless debates/attacks (like the current one between RK and me) time and again (with RK or any one else). I've added a criteria for adding material to the "Authenticity" section of the Book of Mormon. Please take a look and let me know what you think. I hope that will help avoid some future conflict. BoNoMoJo
- Greetings. It's nice to see you have a home page on Wikipedia now. No game plan that I know of. Maybe just chip away at it a little at a time. Sometimes a whole article could stand to be restructured to improve presentation and readability. RK does have a history of clashing with people. Just ask Clutch about that. Also see his talk page, the J.W. one (especially Ed Poor's comments), and Ed Poor's. Tentatively, the criteria statement seems good. Often this kind of statement belongs on the Talk page, but this might be a good exception. The only other thing is I would replace the word "must" with "should" to make it sound a little less pushy. Q
- You're right, should is less pushy. Yea, might be a good exception. A similar criteria could apply to a lot of LDS (or non-LDS) topics. Maybe a meta article could be used for stating and discussing criteria and Talk page candidates would link to it to facilitate efficiency, less conflict, and fair representation of all sides of the matter. I think I can get along without getting too worked up by RK going forward...I can't imagine what else he could say critically that he hasn't already and I think the exchange is (just about) over. It appears he has made some good contributions and ostracizing should be avoided. For formatting, there are a number of LDS articles that could use their own page. After some discussion with mav about avoiding subpages, I think the best approach is to follow a model like "Priesthood (LDS/Mormon), "Temples (LDS/Mormon)", "Ordinances (LDS/Mormon)", etc. A lot of info is on the main LDS page, but there is a lot more info that can be added and over time I'm sure many topics there now will eventually be moved to their own pages to keep the main page from becoming to unwieldy. B
- When I was new here, I too was shocked to find subpages had lost favor. However, after thinking about it for a while, I don't mind this model. It better matches what you get from an encyclopedia on the shelf--a flat index from a to z. Also, very non-technical people might have a hard time thinking of a slash as designating a heirarchical structure.
- I like the idea to use "Priesthood (Jack Mormon)" or whatever. I think "LDS/Mormon" is a little awkward, though. I would prefer either "LDS", "Mormon", or "Latter-Day Saints". If we used "LDS", users who don't know would quickly find out what that means. "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints" is not always recognized as it is.
- By the way, I think the Joseph Smith, Jr. article would be a good place to start revising. More than half of the article is dedicated to the subtopic "Polygamy". Q
- Yes, "LDS/Mormon" is idiosyncratic. Maybe I should've waited longer before I moved the Priesthood page like that. I should probably move it one more time. Agreed about results of using "LDS"...and maybe for that reason alone that is the convention we should follow. Yes, the JS article may be a good place to work for awhile. I'm of the opinion that that Polygamy material should be moved to "Polygamy (LDS)" or "Plural Marriage (LDS)". It is pertinent not only to JS. Info re: BY's and other leader's practice of it and other info on it could be added there later. The History page(s) are going to take a lot of time. B
- I've rearranged the order of LDS-related topics. One page I wish I had renamed differently now: "Criticisms_(LDS)". I think "Controversies regarding the LDS religion" may be better. "Criticisms" sounds like the religion is being selectively picked on which is arguable to at least some. Any thoughts? BTW I like the XP hint/tip trick. I tried it at home...works like a charm. Will it work for NT or 2000? I was thinking about setting up the function on my computer at the office. B
- I think it will work on 98/2000 and it might work on NT. It probably won't hurt to try it out. Controversies might be good. Or maybe arguments for and against. Q
My compliments for the wise words to Clutch. Sebastian 18:45 Feb 7, 2003 (UTC)
- Thanks, Sebastian. I think we'll all miss Clutch. Even the Clutch-haters will miss having someone to bash :) Seriously, though, it seems he was driven away by enormous levels of inflammatory speech against him. I think we need to adopt a higher standard of etiquette. Q 07:37 Feb 8, 2003 (UTC)
RE Your comments on my recent change on sacred texts... You are right. This was an error on my part. I've changed it back. B
- I'm having second thoughts on this (although it doesn't really matter much...that article is fine the way it is) because I'm sure the Church has taken a vote to canonize the KJV as part of the "standard works". The members know though that the KJV is far from perfect, and Joseph Smith himself preferred Martin Luther's German version to the KJV. Your point about other translations is still valid, of course. B 21:00 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Hi, Q. Haven't noticed you around in a while. I took a break from this thing myself for awhile. It can be too addictive and distracting at times. B 21:00 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Simple English[edit]
Hi, I noticed you have contributed to the Simple English Wikipedia in the past. I am trying to revive it a bit as it hasn't been edited very much lately, so this is just a reminder that it's still there and you are very welcome to come and help! Yours views on what to call the "village pump" are also requested. See [1]. Thanks. Angela 11:56, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)