User talk:WBardwin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Hello Wikipedia!

I am back from my vacation in Alaska and am now paying for it with overtime at work! I will be checking into Wikipedia during November and early December, but will be unlikely to do any major editing. Please leave a message if I can be of help during brief visits here.

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. Although the edit counter is suddenly neurotic, I believe I passed the 10,000 mark in July 2006. Comments on edits are welcome on the discussion page. Please note the archives listed below. And, please sign your posts. Thank you. WBardwin

[edit] Archives/Storage

My Messy Office
Image:Crystal Clear app file-manager.png
[1] Bypass for AOL blocking -- security issue.

[edit] Welcome to the Wikipedia

Here are some links I thought useful:

Feel free to contact me personally with any questions you might have. Wikipedia:About, Wikipedia:Help desk, and Wikipedia:Village pump are also a place to go for answers to general questions. To read up on the latest wikinews, have a look at the Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost.

You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.

Be bold!



(Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 02:35, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Southwestern Timelines

[edit] Native American Timeline

Sorry to hear about all the blocks. Can you get a new account with a different provider? In any case, I was wondering if you know of any timelines related to Native American history. If not, we need one, as well as a Timeline of Chaco culture. Regarding your question in your latest edit summary about the Chaco images, let's keep the images in the article, but moving them around is fine with me. —Viriditas | Talk 05:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

AOL Blocks have haunted me since I arrived here - but my employer pays for my system and my dial up, and often allows me to work at home. I do have another internet capable computer, but then I would have to have three lines to the house, as we don't have cable access in our neighborhood as of yet.  :--{ sigh.
The Pecos Classification system is the oldest and best known dating system relating to the American Southwest. But as Chaco was established slightly later than other major sites, we could probably refine one specifically for the Canyon. I have a couple of books that would be a good start. Of course, archaeological dating in North America is always in flux and debates rage forever. But the settled nature of the Southwestern people, and the large amount of archaeological activity, has refined dates. WBardwin 06:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I might be jumping ahead of myself. First, we probably require a Timeline of Native American history, which I would like to place in Category:Native American history. Something like what you might find in Category:Graphical timelines, like Template:Timeline of the Old Swiss Confederacy, but possibly something small enough to use as a footer in all articles contained in the Native American history category, like Template:Timeline of the Migrations Period. It would be neat to link timelines within timelines as well, such that the general timeline at the top of the cat, can be linked and expanded to sub-timelines, which then link to articles within those categories, providing a comprehensive means of browsing the Native American history category and all its articles, chronologically. —Viriditas | Talk 06:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Sounds neat -- and attractive -- and ambitious. A big issue right now is where a timeline would start -- people are almost coming to blows now that the Clovis culture's place as the oldest American people is coming into question. Dates for the earliest Americans are being pushed to 30,000 years BP or even older. Another would be the variance between cultures -- the northeast US, Mississippian culture, and southeast US were all on slightly different timelines. And then the Canadian tribes! And that is true as you move to the MesoAmerican cultures and the Andean as well. Maybe a library search is in order. WBardwin 06:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for giving me some data to go on. —Viriditas | Talk 06:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm just rattling off things -- it is late. But I suspect that a basic timeline exists in some popular reference book somewhere. Most would begin about 13,500 BP, as the dates on Clovis have been well accepted for a long time. There is a long gap, however, between the Clovis hunters and agriculturists and city builders. Much of Native American history was spent hunting and gathering and, although there was a great deal of cultural variety, these people often get lumped in a category like "paleo-indians." (See: Archaeology of the Americas) The Olmec, (Mesoamerican chronology) are usually considered among the earliest urban/agricultural people along with the less well known Andean peoples, i.e. Cultural periods of Peru. Sounds like a good project. WBardwin 07:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the links. Looks like I've got some work to do. —Viriditas | Talk 09:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I think you're right. Start small, and work my way up. I don't know if you're checking out Category:Timelines or not, but there's some interesting stuff in there. You may also be interested in Help:EasyTimeline syntax. I think we should start with a simple table, such as Timeline of supercomputers. It looks like Pecos Classification is already the expanded form of the timeline, so if I'm not mistaken, we are talking about focusing on each particular era? —Viriditas | Talk 05:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Ok, let me see what I can come up with. —Viriditas | Talk 09:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Slow progress. I just created Category:Archaeology timelines. What do you think of creating something similar to Synoptic table of the principal old world prehistoric cultures, except in reference to new world prehistoric cultures? Am I on the right track? —Viriditas | Talk 03:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 8th millennium BC

The current structure of 8th millennium BC is less than useful. How would a graphic organize and display information? Related entry consists of nothing but "Archaic Period; Native Americans move seasonally around Vermont to live, hunt, gather, and fish" without time reference or mentioning the Southwestern States. We seem to have a set of articles in relation to this period, Archaic stage and Archaic Period, both of which have merge tags. Can you help resolve this? One of them (or both?) should be linked to Pecos Classification.This is from List of archaeological periods:

Continents Regions Periods Articles Major Periods
Americas North America North America Lithic/Paleo-Indian (pre 8000 BC)

Archaic (c. 8000-1000 BC)
Formative(c. 1000 BC - AD 500)
Classic (c. AD 500 - 1200)
Post-Classic (c.1200 - 1900)

Expanded archaic and post-archaic periods from List of archaeological periods (North America):

Archaic period, (Archaic stage)
(8000 BCE - 1000 BCE)		 by Time Period Early Archaic
8000 BCE - 6000 BCE		 Plano cultures
Paleo-Arctic Tradition 8000 BCE - 5000 BCE
Maritime Archaic
Red Paint People
Middle Archaic
6000 BCE - 3000 BC		 Chihuahua tradition c. 6000 BCE - c. 250 CE
Late Archaic
3000 BCE - 1000 BC		 Arctic Small Tool tradition 2500 BCE - 800 BCE
Aleutian tradition 2500 BCE - 1800 BCE
by location Great Basin Desert Archaic
Middle Archaic
Late Archaic
Mesoamerica Mexican Archaic
Southwest: Southwestern Archaic Traditions San Dieguito-Pinto tradition c. 6500 BCE - c. 200 CE
Chihuahua (Southeastern) Tradition c. 6000 BCE - c. 250 CE
Oshara (Northern) Tradition c. 5500 BCE - c. 600 CE
Cochise Tradition 5000 BCE - 200 BCE
Post-archaic period, (Post-archaic stage)
(1000 BCE - Present)		 in Southwest
and by Pecos Classification		 Early Basketmaker II Era 1200 BCE - 50 CE
Late Basketmaker II Era 50 CE - 500 CE
Basketmaker III Era 500 CE - 750 CE
Pueblo I Era 750 CE - 900 CE
Pueblo II Era 900 CE - 1150 CE
Pueblo III Era 1150 CE - 1350 CE
Pueblo IV Era 1350 CE - 1600 CE
Pueblo V Era 1600 CE - Present
in Southwest
and by peoples		 Ancient Pueblo Peoples (Anasazi) 1 CE - 1300 CE
Hohokam 200 CE - 1450 CE
Fremont 400 CE - 1350 CE
Patayan 700 CE - 1550 CE
Mogollon 700 CE - 1400 CE

Can you edit this down just for the Chaco Culture page? —Viriditas | Talk 14:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I think I have some sources that will give me a start. Chaco was inhabited for a relatively short period of time, although the paleo groups wandered through at intervals in the early years. Will try and dig through the books. WBardwin 06:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
And while you're doing that, I'll create Timeline of the Chaco culture, unless you have a better title in mind. —Viriditas | Talk 09:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes we need the article; have you tried blanking User:Rockero's redirect for Pueblo Bonito? Here. —Viriditas | Talk 12:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Timeline update

Yes, I'm slowly getting there. More later. —Viriditas | Talk 05:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Could you review my task at User talk:Viriditas/Timeline of Chacoan history and take a peek at User:Viriditas/Timeline of Chacoan history. It's in my user space for a reason. :) —Viriditas | Talk 15:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm working on merging multiple timelines into one, but until that point, I'm keeping separate charts. One chart that could use data (if you have it) is Population of Chaco. —Viriditas | Talk 09:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chaco timelines posted to chacoarchive.org

FYI... as of June 19, 2006, a timeline of Chaco archaeology has been uploaded in pdf format to the Chaco Digital Initiative website. —Viriditas | Talk 07:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Great minds think alike! Plog has consistently been a good source for material from the southwest. WBardwin 17:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AV Kidder

No problem, WBardwin, it was praise well-deserved for a well-written article. I'd been meaning to get around to starting off an article on Kidder myself, and was gratified when I finally did so to find you'd long since developed one.

Noting your apparent interest in the archaeology of the Americas, I was wondering whether you might be interested in helping out at WikiProject Mesoamerica, a project with the intention of improving the content, coverage and organisation of articles relating to Mesoamerica and its historical civilizations and cultures, and the associated fields of study (for eg, AV Kidder was on the list of things to do given his work in the region). Naturally enough the archaeology of the region figures significantly in the efforts, but there are many other aspects and themes which need developing and improvement.

If you've the time or inclination, please take a look around the projects' pages and worklists, if any questions I'd be happy to answer or you could discuss on the project's talk page. Would welcome any input or ideas you may have, even if informally given. We're particuarly weak on palaeo-indian period archaeology and sites for the region, for example.

In any event, will no doubt see you about on various articles (never did get around to doing something with the History of the Americas article). Regards, --cjllw | TALK 07:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

well, I've been working on the archaeology and cultures of the American Southwest, a little bit at a time, for quite a while now. Occasionally I venture farther south as well. Will look over the project. Best.........WBardwin 08:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Population data needed

See this update. Oh, and to answer your question from June 20, yes, I'm incorporating the Pecos Classification into the timeline. —Viriditas | Talk 09:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Invite

Hello! You look like someone who might be interested in joining the Biography WikiProject and so I thought I'd drop you a line and invite you! We'd love to have you help us :-) I saw your note on the dead Historical Figures project...plange 07:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Put the more formal welcome below, but thought I'd drop a line and let you know of a discussion we're having on task forces plange 00:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome!

Welcome!

Hi, and welcome to the Biography WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of biographies.

A few features that you might find helpful:

There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:

  • Starting some new articles? Our article structure tips outlines some things to include.
  • Want to know how good our articles are? The assessment department is working on rating the quality of every Firefly article in Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! plange 00:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Biography Newsletter August 2006

The August 2006 issue of the Biography WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. plange 01:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Juanita Brooks

I note that the Ostlings say that Brooks received "an ecclesiastical blacklisting"--whatever that means.--John Foxe 18:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi John. Sounds like the Ostlings want the church to look authoritative. The only formal incident I'm aware of was a restriction of access to materials by J. Reuben Clark. Brooks formally asked the First Presidency for access to specific records in Church archives regarding the Massacre -- which were not held elsewhere. An appointment with the President was made but, when she arrived, the very conservative lawyer Clark took the appointment and denied her access. Her biography and written biographical comments by historian Jan Shipps do not address any other ecclesiastical action, and she was allowed access to church material in other projects. Brooks remained a member in good standing throughout her life. WBardwin 18:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fawn Brodie

Hi, Mr. Bardwin,

I don't think Fawn Brodie is a psychohistorian in 1945. In the 1976 revised version of No Man Knows My History, she is for sure. --John Foxe 19:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adminship

Time to try again, I figure. You once turned down my offer to nominate you for adminship, because you seemed to feel inexperienced (and probably thought I just wanted you out of my hair for all the autoblocks). I think you said something about after you get to 10,000 (!) edits, you'd reconsider. Now that, as far as I can tell, you are at that mark, I would like to reiterate my offer to nominate you for adminship, not at all because of the autoblocks, but because I have observed you editing for a long while now and have lots of confidence in your experience, judgment, and temperament. Let me know what you think or if you have any questions, (and please give it lots of thought before saying "no"). Regards. Dmcdevit·t 07:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

No, me! Me! Frutti di Mare 07:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC).
Er. (Walking awkwardly backwards.) I think I got a little beyond myself, please excuse an impulse of friendship. The fact is I've never nominated anybody, I wouldn't know how. And I'm not an eminent arbitrator (finally locates door with foot, slides out) like Dmcdevit either! But c'mon, already, W (shouts from staircase), just say yes! You won't have to do any more adminning than you want to and have time for, you know. Frutti di Mare 11:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Gustaf Nordenskiöld the villian?

  1. I am not anonymous User:69.39.6.253.
  2. Your text seems to imply that Gustaf Nordenskiöld was guilty of some kind of unethical conduct. Saying "recognized as valuable" only means that his possitive actions outweight the negative. It does not rehabilitate him from the earlier, most likely unfounded critisism. Unless you can provide modern scientific sources critical of Nordenskiöld, I find your wording a form of slander.

I started a thread at Talk:Mesa Verde National Park. -- Petri Krohn 23:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

And I responded there. Slander? -- remember, Wiki requires no original research and information here originates from other sources. Lots of historical information is critical of Nordenskiöld, and lots of modern archaeologists are critical of the methods and outlook of pioneer archaeologists. He may be a "hero" to some -- but should be presented fairly evenhandedly here. I believe his article is the best place to discuss his historic actions and reputation, and that a summary is best for the Park article. Best wishes, despite your personal accusation. WBardwin 23:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Gustaf Nordenskiöld

I'll take a look. I hope you are doing well. In other news, I think I'm going to create a separate page for statistics related to Chaco, although I suspect they will be less than rigorous unless I stick to tree-ring dates, etc. —Viriditas | Talk 01:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I know my POV is showing on the talk page, but I've tried to keep the article as neutral as possible. As for Chaco, it appears you are really getting involved in the mixed up world of Southwest dating. I'm sorry I haven't had more time to be of help. Best.....WBardwin 05:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Your POV appears to be based on the facts, so that's not a problem. I think that both Petri Krohn and yourself make valid points, and that there is a middle ground between the two where we can meet and agree. I'm still not finished with this, so give me another day. —Viriditas | Talk 01:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok, take a look at what I've done with Gustaf Nordenskiöld, and see if you can use this information in Mesa Verde National Park. —Viriditas | Talk 08:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Great Fire of London

Hi, W. Alaska, is it? If you're around at all, have you still got the Great Fire of London watchlisted? I saw you wrote something on the talkpage back in May. I just wrote something on it right now, please take a look. I'd love to hear what you think. Bishonen | talk 02:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Biography Newsletter September 2006

The September 2006 issue of the Biography WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. plange 00:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adminship

Hi, W! My mood is a reflection of this monster, I'm afraid--not that the arbitration is really that focused on my friend Giano, it's about all sorts of principles, that have little enough to do with him...but it's nevertheless an ugly thing altogether, and I feel a certain compulsion to have a little input at it, ughh. Don't think you'll have to do things like that if/when you become an admin, though! The beauty of volunteership is that you can choose the corners you like to work in. I'm delighted that you're finally takiing the leap. I know you've been petitioned about it for ages, and I also know you've conscientiously refused to do it just for the block nightmare.
I would have loved to have nominated you--I've actually never nominated anybody! Some people like to collect nominees like scalps, but I'm just the opposite, I've been saving myself for that star candidate. ;-) For choice, I was keeping an eye out for you and User:Tupsharru (who's still on the fence). So, who's your nominator (jealouosly)? Is it that rather inexperienced American editor, what's his name, User:Pizza Neapoletana or something, that's asked several times? Well, I hope he fills in the template right, that's all.
Seriously, IMO you'll be a shoe-in, even though you work in obscure corners. Enough well-known admins know you, for the regrettable reasons that we know so well... and their comments will interest others into taking a look at your contributions, and they'll see how unflappable and reasonable you are. Being well-spoken at the actual RFA, as I know you'll be, impresses people, too. Oh, and hey, look at that, you're even a pattern to us all when it comes to edit summaries! I'll be sure to come and throw roses at you. Best, Bishonen | talk 21:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC). P. S. I'll admit to enjoying adminship a lot more than I expected to, myself. I thought of myself as the quietest of content contributors, and had no idea of the vast funds of interferingness that I've discovered in myself! :-)

P. P. S. Uh, btw, you did notice it wasn't the article Great Fire of London itself I was pointing you to? It was this new draft. Bishonen | talk 22:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC).

[edit] New Autoblock Procedure

I hope this makes things easier for you: We can't unblock you at this time, because you haven't given us the information we need to look into your block. You yourself were not blocked; if you were prevented from editing, you must have been autoblocked or blocked because of your IP address. I'm removing your unblock request because there's nothing we can do without this information. If you are still autoblocked by the time you read this message:

  1. If you have a Wikipedia account, please ensure that you are logged in.
    Your account name will be visible in the top right of this page if you are. If it isn't, try clearing your cache.
  2. Try and edit the Wikipedia:Sandbox by clicking here.
  3. Copy the {{unblock-auto|...}} code generated for you under the "Autoblocked?" section.
  4. Paste the code at the bottom of your user talk page and click save.

If you are not blocked from editing the sandbox then the autoblock on your IP address has already expired and you can resume editing. Cheers. --  Netsnipe  ►  06:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, thanks for the effort but you didn't really answer the question. I understand all the perameters of the AOL autoblock issue. I've been working with administrators for months, from a users point of view, on ways we can solve the problem. I avoid templates whenever possible on general principle as I think they are ugly and actually block rather than promote communication. For example, the prepacked message above frankly says exactly nothing. But that leads, of course, to the problem of knowing how to use them when they are required. I don't follow instructions willingly or with good grace.
But you said I was now using the wrong template. I'm sorry about that, as it has been extremely useful. Why is it wrong? and where is the right one? Is it the phrase listed in our conversation above? I'll paste that into my autoblock section - and give it a try. Or if necessary, I'll go back to my old habit of screaming for help from familiar admins. Or, if everyone has given up on the AOL user problems altogether, I'll edit when I can and go from there. Best wishes. WBardwin 06:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The old way isn't wrong, just clumsy. MediaWiki:Blockedtext now generates the right code for you, so you don't have to copy and paste from your talk page. You can copy and paste straight from the block screen. {{unblock-auto}} lets us unblock you in seconds instead of a minute or two (per case) without us ever having to reach for the keyboard. So when you get blocked next time, just copy and paste what you see from your block message. See here for an example of it in action. Cheers --  Netsnipe  ►  06:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kit Carson

Not sure if this is how to contact you directly, so pardon me if in error. Please note my new comments re Kit Carson....I am unable to make those certain changes in the first paragraphs on Kit...can you help? -Caz

Hi! Thanks for your note and for your recent constructive edits. Be glad to help. Are you having a problem with the system or access issues? If so, you could try typing your additions on the article's talk page, and I'll weave them in. If it is not a system problem, what else can I do to help?
FYI, in future correspondence, the User page is reserved for the User's notes about his/herself and the associated discussion page is used to talk to one another. Some people like to carry on a discussion on one talk page only, while others will copy messages and place them on all participants pages. Your choice. And, if you sign your name by typing four ~ symbols, it will show the date and time of your edit and give your correspondent a direct link to both your User and Discussion page. Take a look at my signature (both on the finished page and edit screen) for an example. Best wishes. WBardwin 21:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mormon pioneers

Mormon Pioneer has been moved to Mormon pioneers. The move didn't show up on my watchlist, so I'm just giving you the heads up in case you missed it. --Lethargy 00:25, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Today's autoblock

Blocked again while fighting vandalism on my watchlist. Sigh! Information below. "Good" template activated. WBardwin 17:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Done. You incorrectly used unblock-auto again. The block page has probably changed a lot since you last actually read it. Please just do what it tells you to do next time. --  Netsnipe  ►  17:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Blocked once again. Not an autoblock this time. Since the "good" template is not acceptable, I will use the "bad" template or no template at all. Why -- since I have never done anything to warrant a block -- should I have to go through all these adminstrative hassles, all these rules and procedures, to edit? This is a programming problem. Release please. WBardwin 00:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing.

You were blocked by $1 for the following reason (see our blocking policy): $2 Your IP address is $3.

Sorry, W, I don't understand. :-( I'll ask in #en-admins. Bishonen | talk 00:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC).
Is that the specific message given (i.e. did you copy-paste the $1, $2. and $3)? Does it give a number, or an IP address, or anything? I assume your IP has been directly blocked, but we need to know which it is to unblock. --RobthTalk 00:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I copied everything in the "block" box. No other IP information was given. However, it seems to have "expired" as I have been able to edit for the last few minutes. WBardwin 01:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

OK. Let me explain again. When you are autoblocked next time, you will see a block screen which is identical to MediaWiki:Blockedtext, but with all the $1, $2, and $3 variables all filled out for your case. So instead of {{unblock-auto|$3|$2}} as it says now, it will say something like {{unblock-auto|192.168.0.1|Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by some_other_user...}}. I want you to copy and paste that line it generates for you into your talk page. Understand? --  Netsnipe  ►  14:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Autoblock

Again, autoblocked while running my watch list. Two IP number variants. Information below. Still, stubbornly, refusing to use either the "good" or "bad" template. I do so hate mandates -- when things are not my fault. So -- if anyone is watching, a release please. WBardwin 18:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by Grandmasterka for the following reason (see our blocking policy): Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Afi0956". The reason given for Afi0956's block is: "Use of sockpuppet (User:Studiokid)". Your IP address is 207.200.116.204.
Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by Grandmasterka for the following reason (see our blocking policy): Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Afi0956". The reason given for Afi0956's block is: "Use of sockpuppet (User:Studiokid)". Your IP address is 207.200.116.196.

207.200.116.204 unblocked. pschemp | talk 19:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, thanks for the effort. But it didn't last long. New autoblock. Information below. A release again please, if you would. WBardwin 00:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by Lucky 6.9 for the following reason (see our blocking policy): Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Tehmrmann". The reason given for Tehmrmann's block is: "Pure vandalism". Your IP address is 207.200.116.68.

[edit] Try to edit now

Try now, W. Bishonen | talk 00:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC).

Thanks for your help. I've been using the AOL secure sign in to run my watchlist. Haven't had much time to actually edit lately -- which is probably why I'm irritable about templates and such. Best wishes. WBardwin 00:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Utah invite

For some reason I thought you were a member of this project, but I don't see your name in the participants list. If you are interested at all, you can join the project, which could use more members. --Lethargy 01:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Just been very busy -- been sent out of state for work plus family, vacation, and health issues in my extended family. Adds up to very little Wiki time. Will probably - sigh - have more time in late October, not much in November, but should ease up again in December. But, of course, then there is the Christmas madness. Just have to feel sorry for myself, don't I? Thanks for the invite. WBardwin 18:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Autoblock

Autoblocked -- first edit in a few days! Information below. A release please. WBardwin 03:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by Can't sleep, clown will eat me for the following reason (see our blocking policy): Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Lord Bowser". The reason given for Lord Bowser's block is: "vandalism account, nonsense pages deleted". Your IP address is 207.200.116.11.

unblock-auto|1=207.200.116.11|2=Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Lord Bowser". The reason given for Lord Bowser's block is: "vandalism account, nonsense pages deleted".

Figures that this was an AOL account, sigh. Hopefully this is clear now, please try it again WBardwin. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reasons:

Autoblock of 207.200.116.11 lifted.

Request handled by: Tawker 04:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Can't sleep, clown will eat me & Tawker. Appreciate the attention. WBardwin 04:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Once again, blocked while running my watch list. A release please. Template with information below. WBardwin 10:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reasons:

Autoblock of 207.200.116.12 lifted.

Request handled by:  Netsnipe  ►  10:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

PS: You can remove your old requests/acknowledgements

Thank you. Yes, I know. I archive them regularly. Best.......WBardwin 10:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not an autoblock today

Today someone is accusing me directly -- that's a change. Please release the block. Information below. Old template activated. WBardwin 20:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by William M. Connolley for the following reason (see our blocking policy): NPA Your IP address is 207.200.116.133.

{{unblock|AOL/IP block or autoblock}}

That block should have expired by now. --pgk 21:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attacks

Please stop. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you. Duke53 | Talk 04:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

What personal attack? I simply said that it was your opinion that enough time had elapsed to respond to the citation notice. I disagree and believe that editorial courtesy allows time for all editors to see posted concerns, research information, and respond. If you choose to cut that time short, editors should revert/restore material for others to review. The imposition of any time limit on responses to templates and notices on Wikipedia is generally a matter of personal opinion and impatience. So - after observing your comments and edits on a number of pages on my watchlist - I would encourage you to be more patient with other editor's time constraints. Hope to see constructive work. Best wishes. WBardwin 19:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
"(cur) (last) 00:24, November 1, 2006 WBardwin (Talk | contribs) (revert/"long enough" in your opinion -- give those of us with real lives a chance to do some research.) Duke53 | Talk 19:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Believe me, my "real life" is so busy that I don't have time for any research right now. I barely have time to run my watchlist, where I noted your comments and general activity. My statement was quite generic, applying to all relevant editors who might be too busy to see your notice and act in a short time frame. As this site is "staffed" by volunteers with limited time, editorial courtesy requires giving everyone involved a chance to respond. So, my statement was not targeted specifically to you, although you do seem to have a lot of online time at the moment. I envy you there. I hope to get back to Wiki more frequently in the future. WBardwin 19:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFA

Thx - and I think you'd be an excellent admin! --Trödel 13:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sunday's autoblock

Right in the middle of running my watch list -- must have sifted AOL/IP's. Will use the bypass for the rest of the watchlist but would appreciate a release. Information below. WBardwin 21:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Your account or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by Wiki alf for the following reason (see our blocking policy): Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "The Haxor". The reason given for The Haxor's block is: "vandal only account". Your IP address is 207.200.116.131.

[edit] Template cocked and loaded for the next autoblock

Please do not remove this template when deactivating it. I have to go copy it from history, as I don't think like a programmer. Thank you. WBardwin 20:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

bad template:{{unblock|AOL/IP block/autoblock}}
good template:{{unblock-auto}}

[edit] I don't believe it

I don't believe it, W. :-( I only found one autoblock, please try to edit now. Bishonen | talk 21:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC).

Thanks, Bish -- will give it a try. WBardwin 21:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Great Plague of London

There are two important things missing from the article on The Great Plauge' in London.

  1. In which records are the deaths recorded &
  2. Where are the motal remains of the dead buried.


I have also noticed that it is said to have been the last outbreak of disease of its size in London (if London can be said to be in Western Europe) even though the article also gives a figure of only 75000 - 100000 for the total of the deaths from it. What about Smallpox or Spanish Flu and I do not call Asthma a Disease but the article entitled "Asthma" does and I expect that there are far more people with asthma (i.e. asthmatics) in the conurbation that is London than the 10 to the 5 figure given as the maximum estimate for deaths from The Great Plague. Alec - U.K. 10:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FamilySearch

Care to weigh in on the AfD for this article? -- 63.224.136.62 03:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kolob and Astronomy

Hello, I saw that you also withdrew the article on Kolob which had been present also for more than 6 Months, and which moreover, were visited and commented on by Net surfers. There I think that it is strongly exaggerated this reaction, and that you act here against the culture and knowledge. I ask for the right of replace this article which on the contrary to weigh down your site, brings on the contrary new ideas and defends Mormonism. There you are hard, and I ask for the right in the name of the principles of Freedom of giving this link. In addition, it is an original article and which does not make a wrong to anybody. Cordially Adama

Not familiar with the situation -- I've been very busy and mostly away from Wikipedia for at least 2 months. Will take a look when I can. WBardwin 21:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blog Kolob Order debat

My reponse at Covenant D - Dear Sir, on Wikipedia there are the spirit and the letter. I think that something more personally does not have you on the link, but I am unaware of what. On Wiki. there are ' others blogs which them is accepted. Moreover it was the case of the miens, and even in the France part a complete article was devoted to Kolob Order. I took the form of a blog for a association organization of which the goal is to propose a bond between Mormons and Masons. The articles are in general rather interesting I require of you to re-examine your sentance with regard to these things. Because you know very well that the Law of Wiki. if it is noble can also accept exceptions which exist, under the terms of the interest or of the originality but in the serious one proposed nevertheless. I will request so that the Spirit proposes Fraternity to us and not of discrimination. I like America and the Anglo-Saxon world and I am pained of your measurement which I find unjust. God bless you. Adama

[edit] Elizabeth Cady Stanton Question for You

I'm relatively new to wikipedia and hope I am leaving a message for another user in the right way. If not, please accept my apologies and don't hesitate to edit this out of your user page. Here's my question: I've been working quite a bit on the ECS article, which I think you've also done a tremendous amount of work on. There are a couple of direct quotes that are used in the article, but they don't have formal citations. I've been trying to track them down in the material I've got, but so far have had no luck. I'm hoping you might be the person who put them in and that you can either add citations for them to the footnotes or let me know the reference and page number so I can add the citations -- which I'm more than happy to do. You can take a look at my note on the ECS discussion page ("HELP!") to see which quotes I'm talking about. Thanks so much for any help you might be able to give. On another note -- how wonderful that you were in Alaska. Everyone I know who's done the trip has wanted nothing more than to go back again. I hope you had a wonderful time! Jancarhart 21:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, yes Alaska was wonderful. I wish we had taken much more time there. I've noted your careful edits on ECS during brief visits here. During the last several months, standards and methodology on citation have changed drastically, requiring us all to play catch-up on material written in the last couple of years. As I did contribute to many of the sections on Stanton, I'll have to gather up books again and complete the citations in the current format. I have to admit that I'm not looking forward to the effort -- I hate templates! I have been very busy, but hope to have more time after about the 10th of December. Look forward to working with you. FYI -- please direct messages to the User Talk/Discussion pages. Best wishes. WBardwin 08:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Many thanks for getting back to me. (I got your note on my discussion page.) I'll keep looking in my sources for the quotes as well -- maybe I can find a citation for them before you go to too much trouble. If so, I'll let you know. Also glad to have straight how to leave messages! Thanks again! Jancarhart 15:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MfD nomination

I've nominated your user subpage User:WBardwin/Chapter for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Once upon a time.... —Doug Bell talk 02:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Why have you nominated a USER PAGE for deletion? Part of the agreement with Wikipedia users is to allow them to create user pages for their own and common use. As such they are private property. You may object to the Once Upon a Time Project -- but user pages should not be deleted. WBardwin 05:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Where did you get this badly flawed, totally wrong idea from? --ElaragirlTalk|Count 06:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
See established Wikipedia guideline -- Ownership and editing of pages in the user space in Wikipedia:User page. This has been the rule for as long as I have been working here, since Jan 2005. WBardwin 06:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Just a note, but this same issue related to this page and the issue of user subpages has now been asked on in at least three places (here, my talk page and the MfD). Let's please keep the discussion in a single place at the MfD. Thanks, —Doug Bell talk 09:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why these disappearances of links, same those of Elder on Kolob?

Hello Brother, there is a "true terrorist" on Wikipedia which is called "CovenantD" which same removed the link of Elder and his wife on Kolob and which was super interesting. What does interfere itself this Mister? Is it anti-LDS??? I find unjust that one withdraws the link of this Elder member of the Church, the miens disappeared with besides, but that is deeply unjust that one does that with honest people. Can you do something? you to inform? Well has you and fraternally. Adama

[edit] Hello

Hello, I do not have an answer, I hope that you are not opposed! But good, it is true that it is always opposing to see the links withdrawn or given according to goodwill some. Good day.

[edit] User:WBardwin/Chapter

Hi, W. It doesn't look like there's much I can do, sorry. :-( But I've commented at the MFD as best I could. Userpages live in tension between official rules on the one hand and wiki culture and tradition on the other. According to policy, you're not supposed to have anything unrelated to Wikipedia in your space, especially not "Games, roleplaying sessions, and other things pertaining to "entertainment" rather than "writing an encyclopedia," particularly if they involve people who are not active participants in the project." (Wikipedia:Userpage) However, according to the culture, "The Wikipedia community is generally tolerant and offers fairly wide latitude in applying these guidelines to regular participants. Particularly, community-building activities that are not strictly "on topic" may be allowed, especially when initiated by committed Wikipedians with good edit histories. At their best, such activities help us to build the community, and this helps to build the encyclopedia." (Also Wikipedia:Userpage).

Both these principles can appropriately be referred to; I mean, it's not necessarily the case that official policy has the most clout. They don't have to delete it, but I guess it looks like they want to. :-( I don't know, btw, if you're aware that Doug Bell is a brand new admin—I can tell you feel bitten, but please don't bite. Now if you'll excuse me while I go strangle User:Bunchofgrapes. Best, Bishonen | talk 21:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC).

Just a short comment here that me being an admin has nothing to do with the MfD, nothing to do with any of my comments, and nothing to do with whatever the closing admin of the MfD decides. I don't feel bitten, and certainly had no intention of biting. —Doug Bell talk 22:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome back!

I hope you had a great time in Alaska. —Viriditas | Talk 10:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/b/a/User_talk%7EWBardwin_56b1.html"