User talk:WBardwin: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 05:57, 8 February 2008

Hello Wikipedia!

I logged into the system on 17 February 2005, having worked as an "anonymous" for the previous six weeks or so. During that time, I often signed notes and edits with "-W." I made my 5,000th edit on August 28th, 2005. I passed 15,000 edits in December 2007. Comments on edits are welcome on the discussion page. Please note the archives listed below. And, please sign your posts. Thank you. WBardwin

Archives/Storage

My Messy Office

User:WBardwin/AOL Block Collection History on AOL/IP related blocks.

Wikipedia links

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs: Alexander Charles Vasa; Richard R. Lyman; National Woman's Suffrage Association; Idaho Falls Idaho Temple; Common Latter-day Saint perceptions; Bone china; Church of Jesus Christ (Cutlerite); Charles A. Callis; Dieter F. Uchtdorf; L. Tom Perry; Mary Whitmer; Mormon (prophet); Marvin J. Ashton; Edward Stevenson; Charles Ferdinand, Duke of Opole; Ensign (magazine); Amelia Bloomer; Princess Cecilia of Sweden

Cleanup: Standard Works; Navajo mythology; Joseph F. Merrill
Merge: Controversies regarding The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; Jello Belt; Church of Christ with the Elijah Message
Add Sources: Rebaptism (Mormonism); Pentecostal Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints; Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
Wikify: Red dwarf; Hopewell pottery; National Trails System
Expand: Mother of the Nation; Coyote (mythology); Pre-existence

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 00:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dante (Harry August Jansen)

This is regarding your edit summary at the article Dante (Harry August Jansen), in which you said: "restore some deleted material -- some people are just toooo lazy to rewrite". It is the responsibility of the author of the text to make sure that the content doesn't violate any copyrights. The content added by JOHN WILMOTT ATKINSON (talk · contribs) violated the copyrights of KingOfMagicians.com. Such content can and should be removed, not rewriting it certainly isn't a sign of laziness, as you seem to think it is. A ecis^Brievenbus 21:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, deletion of valid material (whether a copy vio or not) should always be the last resort of a committed editor. We have a vast spectrum of editors here who love to slash, delete, add aggressive templates - all tactics designed to throw their weight around. But very few read the existing material, confirm the information and rewrite the text. I did not originate the article (admittedly a copy vio and poorly written). It came to my attention when one of our editors, in slash and burn style, was trying to speedy delete. He asserted the man was not "notable", evidently not even "Googling" the name. I am simply trying to save the information - hoping the original editor will return and provide more material including sources. Having patience with others, even here, is a virtue. Preaching that others have "the responsibility", then failing to take the initiative and put some time into editing work, is, in my opinion, one of Wikipedia's biggest problems. WBardwin (talk) 21:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mormonism and history merge proposal

Please weigh in on the merger proposal between History of the Latter Day Saint movement and Mormonism and history. I saw that you were a recent contributor of one of the pages in question, and thought you would be interested.--Descartes1979 (talk) 21:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bison

Saw that you made some edits concerning bison. There is another free-roaming herd (though I do not know if it is genetically pure) at the Tallgrass Prairie Preserve [1] in northeastern Oklahoma. It has nearly 3000 bison now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ballred (talk • contribs) 20:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vikings/Mandan

We'll get there, thanks for helping out on this. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Gardner (disambiguation)

I've reverted your change there. WP:MOSDAB explains why: People who entered just John Gardner and were looking for the novelist would be unlikely reach this page as they found what they wanted already - so his link is moved up to the top. (John User:Jwy talk) 23:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your logic stands for all other John Gardner's as well. I went to the page looking for a historical person, not the novelist. Even with WP:MOSDAB (and I really could not care less), every notable person should be equally represented on any given disambig page. WBardwin (talk) 00:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please slow down and get consensus on this. My logic works if there is a John Gardner article - which there was when before you moved it. There has been a lot of discussion about this in several areas. I can see where <first name> <last name> might be a special kind of disambiguation page, but a lot of thinking has gone into the various guidelines and they should be understood and either followed or changed to pass your suggestions for changes on to other editors. I will start a topic at Wikipedia talk:MOSDAB (John User:Jwy talk) 16:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a bit more homework: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Given names or surnames suggests that John Gardner (disambiguation) should not be a disambiguation page at all. This makes sense to me. It should be moved to John Gardner, the disambiguation tags removed from the article and the (disambiguation) page removed. Any objections? I'll ask admins to move the page if I don't hear anything in a couple days. (John User:Jwy talk) 17:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved original John Gardner to disambig page, and moved the novelist to John Champlin Gardner, Jr.. Did some cleanup and will continue to work on the extensive list. Found a number of "lost" John Gardners being sent to the novelists page. WBardwin (talk) 01:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with you linking John Gardner the novelist to the disambig page, but can you please change back the name of his article to just John Gardner? He was not identified in the public eye as the full name you put for him. Same goes for Mark Twain or [E. E. Cummings]. The author page goes by the name they published with.Gwynand (talk) 01:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, 'fraid not -- changes well underway. John Gardner now goes to the disambig page, as it should. Many, many John Gardners, some without middle names and some with. I've found quite a few hidden John Gardners in the search process. All are notable, all should be found through disambig. I am making changes on the various literature pages as well, so his pen name will direct to his legal name. Why should one John Gardner have Wikipedia's permission to "own" the common name? WBardwin (talk) 01:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I said, please assume good faith. Have him as John Gardner(novelist) or (literary novelist). I agree with the disambig page as well, but him going under John Champlin Gardner, Jr. is definitely incorrect. Gwynand (talk) 01:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it to John Gardner (novelist). Typing John Gardner in search will take you to the disambig page ... so I believe we agree on this. Thanks Gwynand (talk) 01:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you now going to change the other pages I just finished linking with John Champlin Gardner, Jr.? Let's make one change at a time! WBardwin (talk) 01:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I would like to help with this... I'll look through your edit history to find them. Do we agree on the disambig name though?Gwynand (talk) 01:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well -- we have two novelists, the other being John Gardner (thriller writer). If I were that John, I would probably prefer a change of name as thriller writer is not necessarily flattering. I would agree our novelist is more literary, though. WBardwin (talk) 01:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think (novelist) is OK. John Gardner (Grendel author) seems far and away more notable than this other writer, and it looks like he is the most notable John Gardner from the list. For a crude example... even if a notable young author named Ernest Hemingway arose now, we wouldn't really have to shift all the [[Ernest Hemingway] stuff around. Not to do a total roundabout on all this... but he is probable more notable enough than the lot that he wouldn't need the qualifier. I don't think it is obvious enough to argue about it though.

Another thing... when searching for John Gardner, it makes you click on a link before you get to the disambig page... I don't know how to fix this, could you?Gwynand (talk) 02:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fashions change -- someday Earnest Hemingway will be a minor author too. With my history background, (even though I like "Grendel") the historical figures are more notable to me. As for "getting to" John Gardner - the Go button will take you to the disambig page. The Search button will take you to a list of "all" references to John Gardner, which is where I have been working. WBardwin (talk)

I found several Google entries referring to him as John C. Gardner -- perhaps another day, another move? Changes ended, for now. WBardwin (talk) 03:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warren Messner

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Warren Messner, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Warren Messner. Donald Albury 19:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Utah War

Thanks for your comments. Obviosuly I am trying to come from an unbiased pov, but mormonism may sink through to a certain extent. I would like to improve this article with direct cites and quotations when I get an opportunity. I am a law student and just started up the semester again but I'll see what I can do. I find this to be a fascinating topic that few people know about. I actually just concluded as 70+ page paper on the topic. Let me know what you think.Panbobor (talk) 03:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Panbobor[reply]

a thank you note

		Thanks for participating in my RfA!
		Although it failed 43/27/0, I'm happy because the outcome has been very helpful in many meaningful ways. Your support and remarks contributed so much to this. If you followed my RfA you know what happened. Most of the editors who posted opposing opinions have never edited with me. Some articles I edit deal with controversial topics and with respect to a very few of these, editors who didn't know much about me had some worries about confrontational editing and civility. Since I support their high standards I can easily (and will gladly) address this. The support and ecouragement to run again soon has been outstanding, thanks again. Cheers! Gwen Gale (talk) 05:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mormonism and History and History of the LDS movement

Changed your vote? I am definately against merging, primarily because placing the topic in History of the Latter Day Saint movement reduces it to a "one time" issue. The most recent pattern of "faith-promoting" history was (as a BYU trained historian, I sincerely hope) a one time event. But Mormonism and history is a much bigger topic, closer to historiography, having implications from Joseph's time to the present. I don't know if this is the right title for such an article, but we are having a restructuring discussion on the Mormonism and history page. Please drop in and give your two cents. Best wishes as always. WBardwin (talk) 03:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't have time to examine the issue so I decided I'd better abstain. I know you guys will find a good solution without me :) --Trödel 03:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I may be getting too caught up in the proposed title that includes historiography. I find that it would be a different topic than History of the LDS movement or anything else with "history" in it. Historiography is an analysis of how the history was written. This to me seems a much more fascinating approach to the topic than what you have proposed and far more open. Being able to review some of the early historians of the church and their counter parts outside of the church would be very interesting. What were Howe's motivations and perspectives vs those who wrote from within the movement. Contrast that with how historians in the early part of the 20th century wrote history and then that of today. This would not so much be topic driven as your proposed outline is, but actually addresses historiography in a more direct manner. Am I off base? If so, I still do not understand what the reader would understand from the article. What I felt to be of most value was the last thing in your outline; the others seemed to be what is found in other articles wrapped up in a slightly reorganized manner. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 22:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. I think you'll find that I brought up historiography earlier in the discussion stream, so I agree with you. Mormonism and history is very different from "History of....... anything". That's why I voted against the merge idea.

I think the article should be about the Mormon "place" in history and the historiography of Mormon sources, but most of our readers would have to have the word explained. That's why I think that we should stick to "Mormonism and history" as a title with a careful definition of terms up front. I think comparing the historic world view of Mormon critics, apologists, and moderates is sorely needed in the LDS project. This is where some of the article's previous contents about historic presentations and conflict with authority could fit.

Such a comparison would take up the bulk of the article, but I envision doing it by blocks of historic time. For example, Jan Shipps (the Methodist scholar specializing in Mormon History) sees a change in world view and historic perspective between the very early Church and the Kirtland period, noting that the construct of the Church organization changed people's image of their place in the world. She also points out that the time of LDS isolation in the west created a different world view than that of the LDS Reorganite sects in the midwest. As I said earlier, we have lots of sources, and lots of historians and pseudo-historians to consider as examples.

Mormon world view - our place within history - is intimately tied to the teachings of the Restoration. It gives us our place in history, by linking the LDS movement to the eternities, to the creation, to the Old Testament, to the teachings of Christ, to the New Testament Church. Joseph Smith is the key to these teachings, as well as other history based ideas such as geneaology, sealing, and work for the dead.

Feel free to play with my ideas on an outline, but I would like to work on a solid definition first. Thanks for thinking -- and for getting excited. WBardwin (talk) 05:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to make sure that we have as clear an outline as possible before actual writing takes place. I hope that you would consider keeping historiography in the title because it directs the article into a definitive path. As long as we define it in the article readers will understand. I am not "committed" to the title, but just appreciate it. As I just explained on the article discussion page, LDS history is not owned by the LDS, but has writen about by historians both within and outside of the movement/church. During the early period of the church their methododologies differed significantly and more recently they are have become more similar in method. I exclude from that sentence those who are not historians, but polemic writers from other religious persuasions. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 18:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My perspective

Nah, I'm not trying to ignore you, I'm just busy recently. I'm not as active as you recently (and for that, feel free to rant once in a while if it keeps you sane; you deserve it), and I spend more time on Wiktionary now, but I know exactly what your talking about. I'm even going to leave you a butterfly so this doesn't become all heavy.

In fact, I've put a lot of thought into it, which must not have been hard, since I've seen the situation develop over literally a year or two and I always seem to run into it. I think the amount of people that the recent behavior by long-term productive users touches directly is really quite small relative to our population of editors, but it's unfortunate if you feel affected by it. I never could tell where the incivility originally came from. But in my opinion, it is incivility by established editors that is the root problem, mainly because we don't have any surefire mechanism for dealing with it. I have a Special:Blockip button, and it works great on vandals and socks, but it's not very subtle, and, as we can see, it tends to inflame the situation when you use it on an established editor for something controversial they said. At the same time, however, incivility is corrosive to the community, and especially when it comes from people with authority and respect in that community, and for whom the regular rules for civility seem not to apply. So what is the community, or, in reality, the administrators, to do? Unfortunately, there often are not many easy options besides those polar extremes, Special:Blockip and complacency. Special:Makecivil is still under development. ;-) And so, honestly, I think we haven't really come up with a way that has worked yet. But people keep trying to do it piecemeal, and reactions cause reactions. I'm probably sounding vague right now, but as long as I'm just ranting, I hope I don't really need specific evidence and names in diff form. :-)

I thought about your "foxes in the henhouse" reference, but I can't tell who is who. :-) If I'm in he henhouse, am I one of the foxes, are the admins foxes... er, who are the hens then, especially since you're outside the henhouse entirely? Putting that aside, I guess I have an interesting perspective as a past arbitrator who is still in the loop on the current arbitration goings-on and related drama and friendly with the arbitrators, and also someone who has the historical perspective of remembering before any of this started. On the one hand, there is ArbCom. We're nearing the half-a-dozenth case in the last year or two (I'm now cynical enough to think this won't be the last) and in all that time they've never made a tough decision. In my opinion they've made the situation worse though repeated botching; every time the Committee failed to give a remedy with teeth, to even acknowledge the incivility or administrator abuses that had taken place, to address the issue properly, it made the people involved more likely to continue divisive behavior and not face consequences from the community, since even ArbCom seemed not to feel strongly about it. Now we're faced with a situation where the only remedy likely to pass, even after all this time of conflict, is "6) Policy and procedure changes regarding Wikipedia IRC channels will be addressed separately by this committee." That's a joke. I'm not sure how well-placed I really am, since it's clear that the arbitrators have not yet ever agreed with my perspective, and that what I've just said won't make any of the parties to the case happy either. Maybe I'm where a lot of the ordinary community is when they see this: fed up with the pollution that conflict like this causes to our encyclopedia—one of the most ambitious and high-minded projects one could imagine, after all.

As you can imagine, I haven't said much about this on-wiki in a while, so please excuse the rambling. I'm not sure if it's what you asked or if it's useful—it's not a policy proposal, after all; but it is a perspective that I've never really added to the arbitration cases or numerous ANI threads, largely because it doesn't really matter what you add to the swirling partisanship, it either gets lost in the shuffle or someone takes offense. Dmcdevit·t 09:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. No, I don't think you are a "fox ravaging the henhouse". But I'm not so sure about several other admins and people holding administrative power, i.e. your view on the ineffectual ArbCom. From an editor's perspective, some of these folk seem to initiate contention more than they control or alleviate it. But to change metaphors, given that some people thrive on contention (sigh), I suppose it is not unexpected that those who seek authority and responsibility should also get a "high" on the "battle field." But to fight within your own officer corps? That seriously undermines the objectives of the encyclopedia and the morale of the troops. How can we write an encyclopedia when policy development is controlled by a vocal few, protestors are sidelined, and longtime productive editors attacked for expressing frustration? As for a solution, I don't have one, either. But I do appreciate your perspective. WBardwin (talk) 02:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From current arbcom case: "...keep arbCom's integrity, credibility, and community's trust intact. Really, is that the objective? WBardwin (talk) 10:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

I have granted rollback rights to your account. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck. NoSeptember 18:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I guess. I'll look the function over. WBardwin (talk) 02:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 199: / Line 199: @@
 :Thank you, I guess.  I'll look the function over.  [[User:WBardwin|WBardwin]] ([[User talk:WBardwin#top|talk]]) 02:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
-== Golden Plates ==
-If you think the article has too many weasel words, then remove them, but leave the opening phrase.  That phrase serves to qualify the entire article and makes all other weasel words redundant.  ++[[User:Arx Fortis|Arx Fortis]] ([[User talk:Arx Fortis|talk]]) 05:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)