User talk:COGDEN

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Archives

[edit] Nice Edit

On Abrahamic religion you did an excellent job cleaning up my English and making it better. You are the first one to whom I gave such a compliment. --Noitall 02:12, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. COGDEN 05:17, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] hey

Good to see you still around - strange that we don't bump into each other that much anymore. Hope all is well. -Visorstuff 7 July 2005 00:42 (UTC)

Yes. Thanks. I've been branching out a bit. I have a huge watch-list now, and I'm thinking of pruning it a little. COGDEN July 7, 2005 00:56 (UTC)

[edit] Reform Mormonism

Strange indeed. I just discovered it Wednesday on a Google search for "liberal Mormons". As a matter of fact, somebody did answer my questions, and I am now putting the answers on the Talk:Reform Mormonism page. Tom Haws 16:52, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Postmodern music

COgden, you were involved in the dispute on 'postmodern music', i wonder if you'd consider contributing toward the RfC that Mr Newbury has made against me? [[1]] The discussion pages have also gathered some interest [[2]]
Say whatever you like about me but please rest assured that i am not a troll , nor a vandal. I have a bona fide interest in wikipedia and the mutual construction of knowledge, i would really appreciate your thoughts!--Nicholas 18:02, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
Thanks very much.--Nicholas 10:27, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sango's RfA

Thanks!

Hi, COGDEN. Thanks for supporting my RfA! I am honored to have your endoresment and hope to make good use of the mop. Sango123 01:32, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Curses" pages

Excellent edits today on the Curst of Cain page - very nice edits - I was looking for a source for one of the points you made, I wish I could write as well as you. Nice work! I hope my sub-pages are okay to have added.... -Visorstuff 22:03, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. The article still needs lots more refining, though. COGDEN 22:10, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Roger Billings

Just wanted to say thanks for watching the Billings page, and reverting when required. Zeimusu | (Talk page) 23:35, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Just trying to keep it balanced and accurate. COGDEN 23:50, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] History of the Latter Day Saint movement

Supernatural?? ........boy, does that have connotations! Ghouls, ghosts and goblins! How 'bout - "Spiritual experiences by early members" or something similar? Comments welcome. WBardwin 22:47, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I have a problem with spiritual experiences, too, because it's not quite accurate, even in today's Mormon lingo. Today, a spiritual experience is a really good sacrament meeting where people cry, whereas non-Mormons don't know what it means. What happened to Joseph Smith was more than just spiritual, it was supernatural. I don't like spiritualist experiences, either, because the connotes turn-of-the century Spiritualism, which isn't what was going on circa 1830. I used supernatural because I though it was the most accurate word that was also relatively clinical and neutral. Other potential words, such as mystical or magical have problems, as well. COGDEN 01:31, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
Well, Roget's ties "supernatural" to "miraculous, preternatural, abnormal, unearthly, superhuman, and occult." I'm afraid "abnormal" and "occult" will ring in the uninformed reader's head. "Spiritual," in the Mormon sense, may have to be explained, but I suspect the word implies aspects of worship and reverence for most people. Spiritual Manifestations?? Religious Manifestations?? Visionary Manifestations?? Shall we ask for some other suggestions on the talk page? WBardwin 06:33, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Yes, we probably should. I've copied this discussion there. COGDEN 07:21, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Forgive me. I hope my comments on this article are not too direct or offensive to you. I really do object to the use of terms such as magical. Charasmatic is not so offensive as long as it is used in conjunction with what was really happening to merit the term. I am curious as to why you would use the statements about the method of translation from those who did not translate over those of Joseph himself?However, when you place their comments before those of the individual who actually did the translating you give precedence to their comments. That does not seem right to me. I am unfamiliar with Emma's claim regarding the use of a seer stone, though I am quite familiar with Harris'. I have never heard that Joseph only used one seer stone throughout his life. To my knowledge Joseph never said he used a seer stone for translation purposes. Everyone else's comments were just personal perception. It is still interesting to me that Joseph would be in reception of the Urim and Thummim from God and yet would choose to use a seer stone...it is not logical.

I have little problem with history, but I am very hyper about reconstructiontist history. When we use the standards of today to describe the actions of history we invariably recreate and judge that history. The "tone" of the language used in describing Mormon history is also important to me. Terminology that is often used by those agressively critical of Mormonism is not acceptable. TO use their language is to agree with their position. That is why I react to magical, supernatural, etc.

I admire your knowledge of Mormon history and learn a great deal from you. BUT, can you please use terms that are not so common in the rank, anti-Mormon literature. Give me time and continue to discuss. I really do listen to you. Storm Rider 07:40, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't think there is any conflict between Joseph's statement that he used the Urim and Thummim, versus the statements of Martin Harris, Emma Smith, etc., who said he also used a seer stone, or nothing at all. Harris, who as you know was involved in early translation, said that Smith used the seer stone sometimes, rather than the U&T, out of convenience. This makes sense to me, because the seer stone was smaller, and he was much more experienced in using it to locate buried treasure. The U&T, on the other hand, was larger and attached to a breastplate. The statement of Emma Smith came from an interview later in her life, but I don't think there is any reason to doubt it, because it is consistent with the statement of Harris. And David Whitmer and William Smith made similar statements, although they didn't say precisely how they got the information. According to Harris (and this is in History of the Church), the seer stone Smith used was one that he and Hyrum found during their early work as well-diggers.
I understand your concern about terminology. But I think it's a better practice to use common, secular English to describe Mormon history, rather than specialised Mormon or Christian lingo. The problem with anti-Mormon literature is not the secular terminology they use, it's their agenda and lack of rigor. I'm sure you've seen complaints by editors who say our articles use too much Mormon lingo and specialized Mormon usages of otherwise common Christian language. The correct tone of the article should be neither that of a Mormon or an anti-Mormon, but rather that of an outsider who is not a Mormon or a Christian, and is completely detatched from the controversial issues. COGDEN 17:32, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
I understand the position of writing an article free from POV to which you are alluding. However, an encyclopedic article is supposed to inform and to inform will necessarily bring position depending on the writer's objective. Words have a multitude of meanings and innuendo. To use certain words will most certainly bring negative innuendo. You may call them secular, but they have a definite, commonly acknowledged, negative connotation. To deny that or insist that it is somehow secular and thus neutral when speaking of a religious topic seems disingenuous. Secular terminolgy is not the mode of expression for religious topics. We have dicussed this about many of the prophets of the scripture and you have acknowledged that though their actions could be classified as "magic", one does not use that terminology. To treat Mormonism differently is incomprehensible to me.
I see a huge difference in stating Joseph's position vs. that of Martin's or anyone else's. Joseph never used the term seer stone for translating the BofM. Others can be quoted, but they are secondary sources. The process of translation was left unclear by Joseph. It seems appropriate to state what others stated, but they should be qualified as secondary.
As an aside, is there any informaton that Joseph was successful using finding treasure? I thought his treasure hunting days were the result of an unwilling Joseph being being hired by others because of his acknowledged spiritual acumen. I suspect that Joseph was not successful as a treasure hunter and the seer stone used for that purpose was likewise not a positive or encouraging experience.
We have discussed this to some degree and we may just end of agreeing to disagree. Storm Rider 19:04, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm open to better words than magic or supernatural. I agree they have undesirable connotations among Christians (although not, I might add, among Wicca, some of whom are drawn to Mormonism precisely because of things like seer stones, and divining rods, and astrology). But I just can't think of any better synonyms that are accurate and which aren't Mormon lingo.
Martin Harris and Emma Smith are primary sources, too, because they witnessed the translation process, and saw Joseph using the stone to translate. I don't think that Smith ever actually found buried treasure or minerals. But I think he was successful in locating water sources for wells, and in locating items that people had lost. COGDEN 20:04, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Incidently, I just found a quote by Brigham Young, who told how Porter Rockwell saw Joseph Smith (so, it's second-hand, but it's Brigham Young) successfully finding treasures hidden by the Nephites; however, they couldn't actually obtain them (presumably because of enchantment). So, I'd call that a partial success. COGDEN 00:17, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Sorry to butt in to your conversation, but #1 - Storm Rider- I'm not sure that Smith "never used the term seer stone for translating the BofM" or that he even saw a difference between the U&T and the seer stone - both were rocks. But rather, he stated that the U&T were prepared for translating ancient records. He did state taht the Book of Mormon was translated "by the gift and power of god" but otherwise was very quiet on the exact process, or have I under-read the primary sources? I'm not seeing him saying he used the U&T or Seer stone? It is obvious that the U&T gave D&C revelations. I think the context of Whitmer's later claims that Joseph gave some revelations from god, some from man and some from evil sources (paraphrased of course) plays nicely into his belief that the seer stone was used - as other stones (the Hiram Page stone, the Black Pete stone, that one lady with a stone and others), for informaiton that was supernatural, but not divine - that revelations can be had, but not from god. This is all important context as to why the early brethren stuck with Urim and Thummim as the mode of translation, and why the use of the seer stone was not emphasized. Too many other bad "seer stone" examples.
Second - COGDEN, we've stated and agreed in the past these are faith-based articles and should be written from a faith-based point of view - that the book of mormon is what it claims it is and then we give room for detractions. I think the same rule should be applied to wording on the wiki. This is a faith-based view, and magic is a term that would be used in naturalistic history, not faith-based history. That said, I'm still nto sure we've decided on a term that is adequate. can we instead wordsmith through the wording and avoid such words as "supernatural," "magic" and "divine?" -Visorstuff 21:33, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
I think we ought to keep charismatic, because that's a pretty well-defined term and nobody seems to be very bothered by it. As for supernatural and magic, I view these words as sort-of place-holders for whatever we eventually will end up with. The negative connotation we speak about is a relatively recent phenomenon with regard to supernatural, because in the 1800s, even into the 1900s and sometimes beyond, the word was widely used by Christians to describe Jesus. The word magic has a little bit different history. The term natural magic was definitely used in a positive sense during Smith's time to describe things like seer stones, but it began to be ridiculed by "enlightened" people, at least by 1841. (I found a quote in the Oxford English Dictionary from 1841 that says, "Natural Magic...is regarded by most persons of the more enlightened classes...as altogether a deceptive art.")
If either of you wants to try and rephrase it, I'm all for that, as long as it is accurate and doesn't sound like a euphemism, which the non-faithful will eventually call us on. COGDEN 23:47, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Help!

I'm trying to track down the original name (pre-Golden Plates) of the Drumlin later called Cumorah, (also known at times as Mormon Hill, Mormon Bible Hill and Ramah) that the church purhsased from the Sextons who purchased the "Mormon Hill Farm." Any ideas on where to look? -Visorstuff 14:58, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I understood that the hill was unnamed until it was called Mormon Hill. I found a FARMS article that says this, and I think I remember reading that conclusion somewhere else, but I can't remember where. The FARMS article is here, but it doesn't give a citation to support the conclusion it was unnamed. COGDEN 18:23, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Found additional information - thanks for pointing me to that article, it helped narrow my search for info quite a bit. I've expanded Cumorah - if you get a chance to expand even more, that's be great. -Visorstuff 20:13, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Seperation of Church and State

I read with interest your political and religious views. I'm curious: Do you also believe that the government should strike any reference to deity from the Pledge of Allegience, currency, and swearing-in verbage? Wadsworth 15:47, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with religious slogans on currency, national mottos, or even the pledge of allegiance (if it's recited voluntarily). What I do have a problem with is compelling people to pay lip service to religions that they may or may not believe in. For example, children shouldn't be compelled to say that the U.S. is "one nation under" any particular diety, because many children don't have that particular religious belief. Also people shouldn't be compelled to swear an oath to any particular diety, or place your hand on the Christian Bible, in order to take public office, or to testify in court. Basically, my problem is with compelling people to do religious things. If someone wants to swear to a particular diety while being sworn-in or swearing oaths of allegiance—be it God, Nature's God (as in deism), Zeus, Zarathustra, Baal, Satan, or the Emperor of Japan—that's fine, but that shouldn't be a requirement, or even an expectation, in any public setting. COGDEN 17:19, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Look at my article...?

Hey, a while back I wrote an article. Some guy wants to delete it, says it's not worthy of an encyclopedia. I don't really understand his argument. Anyway, he's calling for a third opinion. if you could take a look and offer an opinion, I'd appreciate it. I noticed that we've worked on some of the same articles, so I figured I'd ask you. Here it is: Seine (fishing). Thanks! Wadsworth 17:06, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I'll take a look. COGDEN 17:25, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments! Wadsworth 17:41, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

I have reverted an anon's edits to this page twice in the past couple of days. He/she does not seem to understand the distinction between the original church under Joseph and the Utah Saints. I left a note on the editor's numberical page each time (see below) -- but am probably not getting through to them. Would you please monitor the page, as well as look over their edits and see what could be incorporated into the article? Will try to get back to this page in a couple of days. Thanks. WBardwin 01:43, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

For the second time, I have removed your edit to History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Please note that, in the organization method developed by the LDS group here, this article is not about the Church under the direction of Joseph Smith, Jr. This article is about the church in UTAH that developed under the leadership of Brigham Young. There is no denying that Joseph Smith began the practice of polygamy. That is explained quite clearly in the articles History of the Latter Day Saint movement and Plural marriage. In History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints we are continuing that story and showing that the Utah church, under Brigham Young, practiced plural marriage. Please read all the articles and consider contributing to the most appropriate one. You might want to visit our project site, Wikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement and review the discussions on the talk page as well. We welcome responsible edits from a variety of perspectives. Best wishes.
Will do. COGDEN 03:43, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ref_harvard

Interesting idea. Are you aware of {{ref_harvard}}, which includes a backlink to the reference from the citation? (SEWilco 05:54, 6 November 2005 (UTC))

I wasn't aware of that. But true Harvard references do not use footnotes, and multiple citations refer to the same reference, so this wouldn't work. COGDEN 05:59, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Why do you mention footnotes if they would not be used? Multiple links are supported, see Jew#Notes to see some multiple links (uses footnotes but using same technique as ref_harvard uses). (SEWilco 06:18, 6 November 2005 (UTC))
Harvard references are supposed to list the references alphabetically (by author's last name) at the end of the article, rather than in order of reference. COGDEN 06:21, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
{{ref_harvard}} and {{note_label}} are not sensitve to the order of the citations. (I think "reference" is what is in the text, and that refers to a "citation" at the end of the article.) (SEWilco 06:25, 6 November 2005 (UTC))
See Alchemy#References for a better example. (SEWilco 06:34, 6 November 2005 (UTC))
Oh, I see how it works. That could be a good system for some articles, but I'm not sure that would work for the particular article I'm using the references for, Joseph Smith, Jr. That article has tens of citations for some of the references. That would be a nightmare to maintain under the Template:ref_harvard. I'm hoping that my system will be much easier because everything is automatic, and you generally don't have to worry about coding reference ids, unless there are two references with the same author-last-name and the same year. Of course, it doesn't have reverse links, but I don't think reverse links are too useful in an citation-saturated article like Joseph Smith, Jr.. COGDEN 07:56, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
An advantage of reverse links is that it makes reading such citations easier. If your browser marks target links, the correct backlink will be marked so you can hop back to the text which you were reading (or bookmarked). Wikipedia is not paper. The level of maintenance needed depends upon how much effort you want to apply; inserting a new ref between two existing refs to the same citation could involve resequencing the following refs (ie, "c" through "f" may become "d" through "g") or just using the next available sequence ID (ie, "g"). The links still work, and the information is more important than the appearance. Someone, or something, will clean them up. I have a bot which does several such tasks, and WP:FOOTNOTE points out hopes for future ref/cite software support. All these templates are labeling info which will probably end up in database tables, with a way for editors to find standard journal names. (SEWilco 16:59, 6 November 2005 (UTC))
And there shouldn't be duplicate ref IDs because generally such are avoided by appending a letter to the year so as to differentiate citations. (SEWilco 16:59, 6 November 2005 (UTC))
Thanks for the info. I'll be interested to see what kind of software support there might be. In the meantime, however, the bidirectional reference method simply isn't scalable beyond a certain point. I expect that with software support, the end result would look something like a combination between these crude methods. I'd like to experiment and get user feedback to see what the strengths and weaknesses are of several methods, which might better inform the final form of the harvard referencing scheme. COGDEN 07:02, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Experimenting with book_reference is hard on the servers. Make sure you've read the discussions in the Talk page for WP:FN. (SEWilco 07:08, 7 November 2005 (UTC))
Also see the Talk page of Harvard referencing, although a lot of that involves confusion between referencing and citations. Incidentally, you've put your new reference link tool in a "Citations" page; I think reference linking is over in the "General" template page. (SEWilco 07:11, 7 November 2005 (UTC))
There is no added server load with in the Book/Journal reference templates, because HTML ids work on the client side. My system actually has less of a server load than bidirectional links using footnote references. COGDEN 07:20, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
I was referring to effects of editing such a popular template. (SEWilco 07:28, 7 November 2005 (UTC))

[edit] Templates harvard_*

I think you're jumping ahead of the current status and likely to cause confusion. The established *reference templates for information about sources are widely used and are being merged toward fewer, or perhaps a single template. There are several issues to be resolved in the process. One of these is that the templates probably should be called citation templates. The name "harvard citation" applies better to the details of sources than to references to the details, and thus makes the erroneous situation worse. Also, "harvard reference" is tying the citations to a certain style of referring to sources even though several styles are used in Wikipedia, and harvard reference itself is a weakly defined term. In addition, the linking method in {{harvard citation}} has a number of problems with multiple links. Have you read WP:CITE? (SEWilco 04:56, 11 November 2005 (UTC))

I agree the reference vs. citation issue ought to be resolved. I named it Harvard reference simply to conform to Book reference and Journal reference, but if you think there's consensus, I agree we should change all the names. My work on Template:Harvard reference is partly to test some template ideas, which eventually can be incorporated into the other templates.
For example, Template:Harvard reference handles books, journals, chapters, and other materials in a single template, can accept multiple authors, and is backwards compatible with both Template:Book reference and Template:Chapter reference as they now stand. The template needs testing and feedback, but if it turns out that Template:Harvard reference can serve as a replacement for both Template:Book reference and Template:Chapter reference, I think we should create some template such as Template:Citation which combines Template:Book reference and Template:Chapter reference, using the same formula (though perhaps with different formatting).
On the issue of linking in {{harvard citation}}, I don't see what the problem is. It seems to work pretty good with an author-date system. COGDEN 22:32, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Try it with three harvard_citation for a single harvard_reference. And try to figure out if a harvard_reference is obsolete due to no longer being used. (SEWilco 07:12, 12 November 2005 (UTC))
Works fine for me with three one-directional links. As far as finding obsolete links is concerned, it's pretty easy to do text searches. It's certainly no worse than without links. And you don't have the problem of sometimes 20 or more backward links to keep track of. COGDEN 06:30, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Text searches are easy if every reference contains "Wallis and Futuna 2003" but not when just "(p. 231)" (SEWilco 12:43, 15 November 2005 (UTC))

[edit] Book reference First Last

Hi. I would like to give you a pointer notice to a thread with the same title I started on SEWilco's talk page. — Adrian | Talk 22:13, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Featured article for JS

I have been on vacation and had very little time to help on this - but I support your efforts and should have more time over the thanksgiving holiday - don't give up :) Trödel|talk 15:32, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ifnone/iftrue

Added them to tfd, perhaps someone want's them to be keepted(?) --AzaToth talk 22:46, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

The Wiki database says they are still used in some pages, and I'm trying to track the dependencies down and change them. I'd like delete them, but I don't want to break any pages. COGDEN 22:48, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
I think a couple of the links are dead links. simlar why some pages list if2 as depencency. --AzaToth talk 22:50, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
I've noticed a few live links to iftrue, but not too many. COGDEN 23:14, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
They were all from Template:Thermodynamic equations, the rest are user space ant talk space. --AzaToth talk 23:18, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Citation

Which part of "This is a test template which is not yet to be used." did you not understand? I was still studying it. (SEWilco 08:37, 24 November 2005 (UTC))

Sorry. Hadn't heard of the concept of personal study templates. Anyway, there's a need for the template, and it works relatively well as is, so I intend to test it by using it in actual articles with a variety of citation types. COGDEN 03:19, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Not a good idea. It is the target for merging all the other templates in, so may acquire incompatible changes. (SEWilco 05:35, 25 November 2005 (UTC))

[edit] Early life of Joseph Smith, Jr. compliments

I don't know if I was effusive enough in my comments on Featured Article Candidates, and I wanted to compliment you for the Early life of Joseph Smith, Jr. article. I have been on Wikipedia for over a year at this point, and that is the best-written article that I have seen. The article's structure is relatively straightforward to implement, because it is covering a very limited scope (a part of the history of someone's life). But you did a very good job of establishing the necessary context (one of my pet peeves) and of staying neutral on a subject that seems to have personal meaning to you. You show a very nuanced understanding of how to cite sources on a biographical article, and how to make the sources of our knowledge explicit; I have already pointed towards your article in my objections to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Early life of Hugo Chávez. For other articles, I am usually able to raise broad structural objections to Featured Article candidacy; for this article, I can only resort to a collection of nitpicks and specific style comments. I hope that you will continue writing for Wikipedia. -- Creidieki 03:54, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. COGDEN 18:06, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
I completely second Creidieki's comments. Which article will you tackle next for Featured Article Status? :^) -Visorstuff 23:20, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. I've been reading a lot on the period between 1827 and 1831. I probably won't get back to editing it for a little while, though. COGDEN 19:16, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Me too! And Cogden, I would again encourage you to create an LDS template. If you'd like any help from me in that regard, just ask. From your fellow lawyer, Hydriotaphia 03:02, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm still not sure what kind of template it should be. Maybe something like the {{Christianity}} template. COGDEN 19:16, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Your eye is needed on Pontiac's Rebellion

Great job on the Early Life article -- I see "Featured Article" in its future. While you are waiting, how about a change of pace? I've put another article forward for peer review by User:Kevin Myers --Wikipedia:Peer review/Pontiac's Rebellion. I think he's done a wonderful job too. Your critical eye for detail and references would be very welcome. WBardwin 07:32, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll give it a look. COGDEN 19:17, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Creation of template

COgden, I've created a template for articles involving Latter-day Saints. Here it is. I've left it to you to fill in the categories. Per your suggestion, I've modeled it after the {{Christianity}} template. Tell me if you'd like any more help from me. Best wishes, Hydriotaphia 02:41, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and filled in some of the categories. I feel presumptuous doing this, since you know much more about the Latter-day Saint Movement than I. Nonetheless, I hope this helps you. Hydriotaphia 07:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi - the template {{Latter-day Saints}} appears to duplicate the purpose and functionality of {{LDS}} - I am going to ask that it({{Latter-day Saints}}) be deleted - but wanted to notify all the contributors in case they object. Trödel 14:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Early life of Joseph Smith, Jr.

For your absolutely STUNNING work on Early life of Joseph Smith, Jr., I award this Epic Barnstar to COGDEN. Without you, there probably wouldn't even BE an article there, much less a featured one. --Trevdna 18:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
For your absolutely STUNNING work on Early life of Joseph Smith, Jr., I award this Epic Barnstar to COGDEN. Without you, there probably wouldn't even BE an article there, much less a featured one. --Trevdna 18:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
*shines the points up real nice* Hear, hear. Congratualations on the FAship, and good luck with getting a main page slot soon. Or better yet, on bumping the Oz Critters to get on on the 23rd, though I suppose that's in the lap of the gods, though (or {admin/bureaucrat/Arbcom member/FA director}s, which is close enough). Alai 05:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Let me agree completely with the awarder and Alai - great job. Trödel|talk 14:16, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. COGDEN 17:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Also my thanks for your massive effort and congratulations. I think the featured article was a great success. WBardwin 06:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Featured Article summary

I was wondering if you think this change would be better for the last sentence - since using the word foundation has specific meaning in some LDS literature - i.e the foundation being Christ - and the possible confusion from using this word in the summary.

"Latter Day Saints view the events in Smith's early life as the restorationpart of the church Christ foundedation for their religion."

I think this more accurately reflects the view of Latter Day Saints as well. Trödel|talk 14:16, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I think you're right it needs to be changed, but I wouldn't say it quite the way you suggested, since the actual foundation of the church happened later than the scope of this article. I'll do some thinking on the subject, and in the meantime, feel free to make any changes you think are appropriate. COGDEN 17:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
I gave it a shot :) Trödel|talk 22:18, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Any luck getting this article on December 23rd? Trödel|talk 01:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

No word yet. COGDEN 06:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Looks like Joseph Smith is on the front page on the 23rd. Vandalism will probably be frequent that day - I have to work from 8:30-3:00 ET - but should be able to stop by at least every 15 min. Trödel•talk 03:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Great. I didn't think about that. I'll try to monitor it as often as I can, as well. COGDEN 18:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Journal reference

Hi COGDEN - good to have this set up, but it formats the results incorrectly and I don't know how to edit it. Currently it gives:

Author, A. A. (2000). Article title, Journal, 10(2): 10-112.

Could it (and related templates!) be changed to give the generally used standard punctuation, please:

Author, A. A. (2000). Article title. Journal 10 (2): 10-112.

(i.e., a fullstop, not a comma, after the article title; no punctuation between the journal and its volume; and a space before the issue bracket) - thanks - MPF 11:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I made the change. This makes it more consistent, anyway, with {{Book reference}}. COGDEN 18:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed you did a lot of work on this template. Could you please see my comment on Template talk:Journal reference. I think the title should be optional, if it is possible to modify the template to make this possible. In physics journals, the title is almost never quoted in the references. While I agree that the title should be included on Wikipedia, sometimes this is not possible if you need to cite an older article for its historical importance but don't happen to have access to it. Thanks. –Joke 17:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject LDS

Hello! I noticed you were on the list of members in the LDS WikiProject, and I was wondering if you were still interested in helping out there. You see, over the past few months, it appears that it has slowly drifted into inactivity. But you CAN help. Please consider doing both of the following:

  1. Take ONE thing form the To-Do list and do it. Once you're done with it, remove it from the list, and from the<>{{Template:LDSprojectbox}}<>, so we know its done. Keep the page on your watchlist. We have a backlog going for more than half a year. Please help to work on it, and remove it.
  2. Vote on the LDSCOTF, and work on it!
  3. Tell your friends (esp. LDS friends, & esp. Wikipedian friends) about this WikiProject, and enocourage them to join (and be active).

Remember: your involvement in this WikiProject is just that - involvement! Please help us out.

(Note: I'm sending this out to everyone who's name was on the membership list, so I will NOT be watching this page for a response. If you want to contact me, do it on MY talk page, please.)

Thanks for all that you do -Trevdna 15:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Use of "Mormon"

COgden, glad to see your name pop up. Did you have a good respite after the great effort on the featured article? As your LDS project involvement predates mine.... I believe that name/title usage was discussed fairly early, before my time, and is buried in the archive. Would you please add your memory to a discussion on Talk:List of Latter-day Saints about changing the name of the list. I would like a broader approach i.e. "List of people in the Latter Day Saint Movement" while another project member likes "List of Mormons". Thank you. WBardwin 06:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Strangite)

You did an excellent job with the article:Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Strangite).I added it to the Category:Religion in Wisconsin and added a sentence to the Burlington, Wisconsin article, since the church is in Burlington, in connection with the Wisconsin-Wiki Project.Thank you-RFD 15:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC) I made a minor change in the article concerning the migration to Beaver Island.I added information that St. James is now St. James Township, Michigan, I hope you will not mind.Thanks-RFD 14:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Early life of Joseph Smith

The article Early life of Joseph Smith, Jr./Stable is currently being proposed to be made a Stable version, this nomination is a test of the process detailed on that page. As you have edited that page recently, please review the stable version of the article and join the discussion at Talk:Early_life_of_Joseph_Smith,_Jr./Stable. dml 00:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joseph Smith

I am taking a subject specific wikiholidy from Joseph Smith, Jr. for a couple days. Could you take a look at the current controversy (my edit) over how to describe the witnesses who saw the plates? I am worried I am opposing useful changes because this bcatt person is so uninformed and accusatory. Thx - Jim 00:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Joseph Smith, Jr.

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Joseph Smith, Jr., and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

[edit] Harvard Citation template

Thanks for your work on this!

Is there any to remove the name of the author from the inline citation? So you can write ". Byrne (2004) finds..." Ultramarine 12:38, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome back

Hi! Good to see your name again. The LDS project - and I - have missed your strong input. Best wishes. WBardwin 02:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. COGDEN 01:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Attention: LDS Categories up for deletion or movement

COgden, the following categories have been targeted for deletion or movement by User:Bhoeble. Please express your opinions ASAP. Thank you. WBardwin 08:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

5.2.22 Category:Latter Day Saint history to Category:History of Mormonism 5.2.23 Category:Latter Day Saint History Books to Category:History books about Mormonism 5.2.24 Category:Latter Day Saint Historians to Category:Historians of Mormonism

I agree with your suggestion, and I so voted. COGDEN 01:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar for referencing styles

The Barnstar of Diligence
This barnstar of diligence is being jointly awarded to COGDEN and Saravask for their pioneering work on referencing styles on Wikipedia, evident in Template:Harvard citation and articles such as Early life of Joseph Smith, Jr. and Kerala. Samsara (talk • contribs) 20:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. COGDEN 04:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christianity

My edit summary said, "restored intro." I suppose I could have presented some motivation or posted something to the talk page, and I acknowledge that I was kind of brusque. I do maintain, in a friendly way, that your own edit summary, "Revised intro to correct some NPOV problems," is pretty much content-free. Granted you mentioned the intro, but so did I. "Corrected NPOV problems" is the universal edit summary. I could have written in my summary, "Reverted intro to correct some NPOV problems." Anyway, we've been around and around on this whole monotheism thing for the last month. I really have nothing new to say about my position that's not already on the talk page. In brief, I think we should just say and link "monotheistic," and leave the nature of the Trinity and differing Christian understandings to someplace other than top center on the summary article. I am sorry for the rather sharp edit summary. I won't revert again until people have had a chance to look at it. Tom Harrison Talk 01:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] If you could help me with an admin

User:Jkelly has decided to warn me about the three revert rule for using my 3 reverts to partially restore your edits. He has not done the same for Aiden for using his three to remove what you said. If you can talk to him so I don't have to outright report him for harassment, it would be appreciated.

KV(Talk) 18:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

For Aiden, I only count one revert. Am I counting wrong? Anyway, I try not to act like an Admin when I'm a party to the controversy. User:Visorstuff, User:Storm Rider, or User:Hawstom might be sympathetic if there's harassment. COGDEN 01:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joseph Smith

Hi - saw that you dropped in for some edits to the early life article yesterday. I would be very interested in your view on whether the use of the "stated," "claimed," etc. create a opposition tone/view in the article. Your efforts to get that article to featured status where great, so knowing your view and why would be persuasive (to me at least) in getting a concensus on that issue. --Trödel 13:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I don't have a problem with qualifications like "stated," "claimed," or "reportedly." They seem pretty neutral, and I don't see them as oppositional. I'm a little more concerned with qualifications like "alleged," or "supposedly," however. I think that overall, an article should read like a piece of journalism. In news stories, we hear these kinds of qualifications all the time, and we understand that the news organization is just trying to be neutral. I think that for the JS article, the use of these kinds of qualifiers simply seems out of place because most everything that has been said about Joseph Smith has come from a particular, definite POV. For example, we hear "Joseph saw a vision," and "Joseph pretended to see a vision." But it's relatively unusual to see "Joseph claimed that he saw a vision." COGDEN 18:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Thx for the feedback --Trödel 18:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References

Noticed you removed some unused references. IMHO, we should leave references even if they are not used(quoted) in the article. OTOH, if these are not useful for that time period of JS's life, forget I asked. --Trödel 19:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

These particular ones, yes. They dealt exclusively with his childhood. COGDEN 19:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Should have assumed that ;) --Trödel 20:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Harvard citation & subpages

I was working on a subpage, and the Template:Harvard citation did not appear to function correctly... due to the forward slash in {{FULLPAGENAME}}, I presume --Ling.Nut 02:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I can't reproduce the problem. Is there a page or a test-page where the problem arises, so I can see what's happening? COGDEN 17:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I was originally working on "Wikipedia:Citation templates/Harvard examples," but I had to move the page because the templates wouldn't work (or I couldn't get them to work, which is not necessarily the same thing). Thanks --Ling.Nut 19:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I tried moving that page to User:COGDEN/Sandbox, and it appears fine to me. Maybe there is a problem with different browser configurations. Do the problems appear when you access the page? COGDEN 19:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I dunno. I'll tell you what ocurred. The templtes generated red links, and my popup utility displayed only the last bit of the address "Harvard examples" as the target of the link. --Ling.Nut 19:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I've tried to reproduce the problem, and can't. Maybe if you notice the problem reoccurring, you can let me know, and I'll see if I can figure out what's happening. Maybe it was a problem with Template:wikilink or #if that has now been fixed. COGDEN 19:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Harvard reference

Hi,

Oops. OK, so all this time I thought that the target link of Template:Harvard reference was fixed. I suppose I thought that 'cause I didn't see anything in the documentation stating that you could set the link target yourself. In fact, I didn't see anything in the documentation on the template's talk page that mentioned Ref at all, except one small example near the end which set Ref=none.. Then.. I'm looking at the code.. and Ref=value sets value as the link target. Sorry if I ranted about it in a couple places (which you may not have noticed). I am busy piling up mistakes in my first seven weeks of being a Wikipedian. --Ling.Nut 04:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

No problem. The documentation for the template was a little sparse. I like your work. COGDEN 19:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm currently working on Template:Harvrefcol. Any and all comments are appreciated. --Ling.Nut 00:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I have one problem with the Harvard citation, please can you help me at Template_talk:Harvard_citation#Many_different_authors_and_different_books_in_one_footnote.3F?--Pudeo (Talk) 12:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC) Is it possible to do so? I mean hyperlink between citations and references, that's what I'm trying. --Pudeo (Talk) 12:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

See that page for my response. Hopefully that helps. COGDEN 23:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Women and Mormonism

I saw you were one of the first contributors to Women and Mormonism. It's an important article but needs a lot of work. I am trying to clean up the main LDS article and just added a link the this article and was hoping you could help by improving the article. I am more of a clean up and re-organize editor, and not good at finding good sources, so maybe you can help there. Thanks a bunch. Bytebear 03:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

That's definitely one of my priorities. I'm kind of focused right now on Life of Joseph Smith, Jr. from 1827 to 1831, but I'll take a look at the article and try to help. COGDEN 16:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Concensus on Disambig page

Thanks for talking that out. I love it when wikipedians come to conscensi.

Unfortunately other info on your mainpage is completely backwards.. and I quote: "Best current TV series: Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series). Runner-up: Lost (TV series)" Its totally the other way around. :) All I gotta say is.. is he gonna execute his own traitorous wife? and.. Desmond is still alive???

Peace --Home Computer 21:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Archiving

I undid your recent archiving of Talk:First Vision for two reasons. First, the proper way to archive is to create the archive article, and then copy and paste the material to the archive. Moving the talk page to the archive page is bad because it moves the page history with it. Second, you shouldn't archive active discussions, or discussions for which there are comments only a few months old. COGDEN 16:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. That's fine.--John Foxe 20:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] KSS

Wondering if you can comment at Talk:Kirtland_Safety_Society#Unreferenced_tag -Visorstuff 00:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll take a look. COGDEN 00:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Organization at CJC

Since we both have made some major organizational changes at CJC recently I wanted to leave you a brief note about my changes. I asked some friends, "If you were wanting to learn information about CJC what would you want to know." Based on their responses I think that what CJC believe is one of the first things that we should mention. None even mentioned organzational structure. When I explained about apostles/prophet - then they said, well yeah I'd want to know that too, but later. I think the structure is about right now - though I am not sure that the dispensation section fits right yet. --Trödel 18:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I support your organizational changes. I think they are an improvement. I sort of question whether the LDS view of dispensationalism is that notable in its own right to get its own heading. Maybe it ought to be merged with the "continuous revelation" section. COGDEN 19:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Good idea - it seems a little wordy for the main article anyway. I am also thinking about whether we can do something similar to what you did at JS - have a good summary with sub articles on the different areas. That would also facilitate combining some of the smaller articles --Trödel 19:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FamilySearch

As you have contributed to a related article, you might want to know about the AfD for FamilySearch. -- 63.224.136.62 05:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright issue with Temrec.png

Your imput was given at Wikipedia:Copyright problems regarding the image Temrec.png. The image is currently up for deletion, and thought you'd like to wiegh in your opinion at Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2006_December_5#Image:Temrec.png_.28talk_.7C_delete.29. Cheers. -Visorstuff 22:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New firm

Hey - tried to email you a few days ago to see if you'd post comments on the featured list nomination amongst other things, but it bounced. Are you at a new firm, etc. Special:Emailuser/Trödel --Trödel 20:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually yes, for several months. I just updated and activated my email on my preferences, which should work now. I'll take a look at the nomination. COGDEN 20:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Presiding High Council

Hi, COGDEN- Recognizing that the names of the presiding quorums in the early history of the Church are difficult to sort out, I think that the Presiding High Council article needs some clarification, especially for those who may not be familiar with the current configuration of church leadership. I was hoping to do some research and a little editing on it in the near future, and would really appreciate your input in the process. In addition to the D&C, what sources were you using? Happy New Year!--Rojerts 00:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on the article and see if I can help out. Probably the most relevant secondary source would be Quinn, Mormon Hierarchy, Origins of Power, which has the most comprehensive overview of all the presiding quorums and their relationship to each other. COGDEN 20:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Role of administrator

I have recently been nominated to become an administrator. Before I decide whether or not to accept, I asked Visorstuff what is involved in being an administrator. He has given me his advice and also suggested that I ask you. What is your experience of being an administrator? I'm especially interested in the additional time that being an administrator takes. Thanks for taking the time to respond. You can answer here or on my user page. Val42 18:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm responding on your talk page. COGDEN 22:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bravo

I was impressed with the work that you did on the "sealed portion" of Golden Plates. I still think that section's about twice as long as it needs to be, but my opinion doesn't detract a bit from your accomplishment in putting all that information together.--John Foxe 23:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. COGDEN 02:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind that you used my name in contraposition to that of Storm Rider, but in fact, if I were to reedit Golden Plates to my taste, both the toads and the sealing of the plates would end up in the notes.--John Foxe 00:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to drag up Roger Billings, but my biological mother is a member of that group, and I was interested in talking with you about it sometime. In fact, the user Firewriter writes similar to her. Anyway, nothing would please me more than to see Roger Billings exposed for the child-abusing rapist that he is. Kabede 18:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citation template, possible bug

It looks as if there is a bug in the citation template: page numbers specified in a contribution don't seem to appear in the output. For an example, see the "Joseph Knight" example at Template:Citation#Examples_4 where the page number "35" doesn't appear anywhere. Looking at the edit history to Template:Citation/core, you seem to be the only user who understands this template -- I'd try to fix it myself but I'm too afraid of screwing everything up! Thanks! Grover cleveland 20:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. Problem should be fixed. COGDEN 06:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citation template

It appears you are responsible for {{Citation/core}}, which I have been trying to use lately (through {{Citation}}) because of its support for Harvard reference links. In case it is not on your watchlist, please have a look at my comment there.

Beyond that, is there a discussion of the aims, alternatives, and design decisions so that I can monitor and possibly contribute? --KSmrqT 17:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Not much discussion as yet. I essentially just hammered it out based on my needs in history-related articles. I certainly welcome other pairs of eyes who can recommend improvements. COGDEN 20:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] one template sets page-level variable for other templates to read...?

Hi,

Is there an easy way for one template to set a page-level variable for other templates to read...?

Thanks, --Ling.Nut 15:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

PS — am looking for a way to toggle citation templates on/off. See longer explanation of reasons here. --Ling.Nut 16:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
There isn't. Discussions have come up over at Wikimedia about incorporating variable definitions into Wiki pages, but the powers that be think the variable concept is not a good idea. COGDEN 00:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
That's kinduva shame. The two bitterest and most vitriolic wars I've seen on Wikipedia are schools and cites... and one of them can be made to go *poof!* via the application of technology... :-) --Ling.Nut 09:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Becoming an administrator

I am thinking about applying to become an administrator. I spend a fair amount of time reverting vandalism and issuing user warning messages. I believe that being an administrator might make it easier to do this. I have read over the duties of being an administrator and believe I can handle most of those tasks fairly well, and the rest adequately. I would be interested in your opinion as to (1) do you think I am ready to become an administrator? and (2) If so, what steps should I take? Thanks in advance for your time. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 03:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd be glad to nominate you, if you are interested. I think your chances are pretty good, because you've been around since 2004, and you have over 4,500 edits, and you've done great work. There is a good miniguide regarding adminship here. A more detailed guide is here. If you are interested in starting the process, I've started a nomination page here. You can accept the nomination, fill it out by answering the questions, and let me know, and I'll add it to the RfA page. You can take however long you want to answer the questions, since the nomination doesn't become effective until a link is added to the WP:RfA page. COGDEN 17:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll let you know when I'm done. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 20:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/o/g/User_talk%7ECOGDEN_0ea3.html"