User talk:COGDEN

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

COGDEN is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Contents

[edit] Archives

[edit] Complete randomness

I was looking for arguments in my efforts to ensure that we devote any kind of substantial thought to the effects, facts and implications before the current furious purge of fiction articles is brought to its conclusion, and found that you here made a routine message using longhand instead of masses of acronyms, thereby ensuring with a bit of extra work that the message would be easily legible and that little experience was necessary to follow it. So thanks for your courtesy. --Kizor 20:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. COGDEN 20:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mormonism and history merge proposal

Please weigh in on the merger proposal between History of the Latter Day Saint movement and Mormonism and history. I saw that you were a recent contributor of one of the pages in question, and thought you would be interested.--Descartes1979 (talk) 21:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A difficult copyright case

I hope you have been well lately. I am looking copyright situation similar to what we discussed previously (in fact re-reading that discussion reminds me some of the questions I asked elsewhere were things I had already known!). This one is a s:Russian POW suicide note related to the Betrayal of the Cossacks. I have most of the issues clarified, but I was wondering what you thought about the last sentance ('Let the Americans and the whole world know that our death is the commencement of the struggle against the dictatorship of Stalin.) being consent to publication. Do you think such a remark should qualify as consent from the author(s)?--BirgitteSB 18:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

There is also a good deal of discussion on the issue at User_talk:Lupo#A_further_twist. Including opinions about jusristiction that I didn't get into above because I found them to be solid.--BirgitteSB 15:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I took a look at the source. I'll comment over on Lupo's page. COGDEN 17:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments. I think it will remain a controversial case, but having controversial case with good information is much better than one with little or poor information.--BirgitteSB 22:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Featured article review : Golden plates

Golden plates has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Serpent's Choice (talk) 19:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merge Proposal - Angel Moroni

Please weigh in on the merger proposal between Angel Moroni and Moroni (prophet). You are receiving this notice since you were identified as a recent editor on one of those pages. Thanks! --Descartes1979 (talk) 07:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. COGDEN 20:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request for admin help

I see you are an admin that is involved in religion articles. Can I request some advice/help from you concerning a "dispute" with User:Fullstop? I feel that s/he has been uncivil in comments to me and s/he has been blanking and manually emptying some categories I recently created. See a discussion on my talk page here. The catgories are Category:Zoroastrians by nationality and its subcategories if you'd like to look at them. Without getting into the technicalities of the issue of nationality/status as a Zoroastrian, my position is simply that the editor should nominate the categories for WP:CFD if s/he has a problem with the existence of the categories or the way they are being applied. Is this not correct? I don't understand why the editor can't use the provided-for procedure. S/he sounds quite frustrated and it may be that most of that frustration results from past similar disputes the editor has been in, but I don't really appreciate him/her taking it out on me either. Do you have any advice for what I should do? Thank you very much. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I really don't have much to add here. I don't see any particular right or wrong way to do the categories. Maybe I'd suggest just letting the issue sit and cool for a while and coming back to it later. I would also listen carefully to what Fullstop has to say; s/he is a long-time editor whom I've worked with before, and usually has a lot of good ideas, and the more confrontational approach s/he took here is not typical. I think, after a cool-off period, the two of you might be able to have a more constructive, rational go at it. Also, if you wanted to do something now, you could always institute a WP:CFD yourself, with the goal of getting additional community input on the question. COGDEN 02:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice — I will try that approach. It was advice I was more looking for rather than any "action" on your part. Best wishes. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Drive-by remark no. 4653-391(a)

I've just stumbled across the "no original research" RFC, and I want to tell you that your statement may be the most lucid scholarly writing I have ever seen on wikipedia.  Normally, when confronted by a wall of diffs and dates (usually on an arbcom subpage), I reach for my mouse wheel almost immediately, but you were able to hold my attention.  I hope that, in the future, that proceeding results in fewer people being dragged through the mud while discussing policy improvements.    Xeriphas1994 (talk) 20:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouraging words. I think that whole issue got blown way out of proportion. It's unfortunate that so many people had to waste so much time on this that could have better been spent actually improving articles. COGDEN 20:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar of Diligence

The Barnstar of Diligence
Awarded for your conscientious work on Golden Plates

All the best, John Foxe (talk) 23:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. COGDEN 23:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Mormonism and violence

I have nominated Mormonism and violence, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mormonism and violence. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. I've added my comment there. COGDEN 07:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Talk: Temple garment

Someone is suggesting that one of the references you added to this article (Buerger, David John (2002), The Mysteries of Godliness: A History of Mormon Temple Worship) is unreliable and extremist. He doesn't seem to have actually read this source so perhaps you can clear up the issue easily with a simple explanation of what you know about the source.--BirgitteSB 00:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Thanks. COGDEN 01:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Template:Citation/authors/testing

A tag has been placed on Template:Citation/authors/testing requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Template:Citation/patent/testing

A tag has been placed on Template:Citation/patent/testing requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

It can be deleted, or not--I have no preference. It's just a testing template. If any further testing is ever needed, it is easy enough to create another testing template. COGDEN 18:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Shit happens

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Shit happens, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Shit happens. Neitherday (talk) 17:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. COGDEN 20:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Shit happens

I have nominated Shit happens, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shit happens (2nd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Neitherday (talk) 19:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. COGDEN 20:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request for feedback

Hi, COGDEN, I want to ask you a favor which you should feel free to do in your own time or not do if you are uncomfortable with it.

I had a small dispute with User:Storm Rider, who I assume you are familiar with somewhat b/c you both seem to have been active in editing LDS pages. You may not be familiar with me, but I am relatively new on WP and have been involved in editing some LDS pages as well. If you could, would you review the interaction here and let me know if/how I am off base. I hold no animus towards Storm Rider but for some reason he seemed to really take offence at my comments, and I wondered: am I being a dick, or is he like this with a lot of users? If I'm being a dick, can you tell me so I won't be a dick anymore? I would appreciate it. Feel free to comment on my page or e-mail me; I don't see any need to prolong the dispute at Talk:Master Mahan unless you feel it's necessary to comment there. Thanks very much, Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

On the substantive issue, I agree with you: Storm's addition needs a reference for the statement "Joseph Smith is not known to have ever discouraged the Latter Day Saints from participating in Masonry", as does the phrase "this position seems to be contradicted by". Storm knows the policies and will probably eventually come around, if you are civil and flexible. I'd probably just let the tagged statement stand for a couple of weeks. This article probably shouldn't be a rehashing of everything that should be in Freemasonry and the Latter Day Saint movement, but if the statement about Smith's 1840s associates remains, the article should also mention that W.W. Phelps was an editor of an anti-Masonic newspaper in New York, and one of the founders of the New York anti-Masonic movement, and that Martin Harris was a member of a Nauvoo anti-Masonic vigilante group. But this all arguably gets outside the scope of the article. COGDEN 01:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your input. My intuitive sense is that the article doesn't really need much on freemasonry at all because of the existence of the other article, but I can understand why an editor might feel defensive because of the statement by the Tanners that relates directly to "Master Mahan". I think I'll just let the article alone for a time, as you suggest. I've noticed with religion articles that there are definitely a class of editors who seem to take content disputes personally, or at least the disagreement gets easily turned into personal attacks or not-so-subtle mockery of other editors for what seems like nothing but a difference of opinion on a technical issue. I'm sure he's wary because no doubt he's had his share of run-ins with "anti-Mormon" edits/editors, but it would be nice to have some good faith assumed on my behalf too. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
If you get a chance, could you examine the changes User:Sanitycult would like to make to the article and perhaps comment on the talk page. Much of what he is proposing to excise is stuff that you added earlier, and I thought you did a great job of incorporating various material there. Sanity's convinced it's all "fringe theory" stuff that needs to be excluded. Thx again, Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
See also my comment here, if you get a chance. I note from your contributions that you've been away from WP, which I didn't realise before. That's OK; thx, Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, sorry. I've been too busy at work for quite some time. I'm afraid I won't be able to participate on this in the near future. COGDEN 07:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Golden Plates

I notice you commented on this one after I closed it. I appreciate that you did try to work. The section you added is an improvement in terms of POV. But the entire article needs to be audited in the same way. It's hard to come up with an analogy, and the best I have is this: if Golden plates were a movie, our article would be a plot summary and little else. I would rewrite as much as possible, compressing the story and adding as much scholarship as you can. The bulk of it is not in any way critical. It is, literally, "Smith said..." for far too much of it.

As for "said" more generally, I realize it can be used as a qualifying term and things in this article require qualification. But it's used far too much. As a basic prose consideration, it should be reduced as much as possible. Marskell (talk) 20:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, but its hard for people who are unfamiliar with this field to understand just how disputed every single proposed fact or statement is. Also, there is little new research in this field, since all we have are what people said, and the only "research" is simply to summarize what people said. Therefore, it appears that this subject matter is simply inherently unfeaturable. Nobody could possible rewrite this in the way you suggest, removing the "saids", without violating WP:NPOV. COGDEN 20:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please consider taking the AGF Challenge

I would like to invite you to consider taking part in the AGF Challenge which has been proposed for use in the RfA process [1] by User: Kim Bruning. You can answer in multiple choice format, or using essay answers, or anonymously. You can of course skip any parts of the Challenge you find objectionable or inadvisable.--Filll (talk) 14:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. It is a very interesting and instructive exercise. Good work. I wonder if we can incorporate some examples like this into the policy pages. I think people learn more from actual cases than they do abstract theory. COGDEN 05:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Succession crisis

Citations requests for details on the legal/social/organizational structure of the Church, found in the background section, are becoming an issue. I suspect your library on the topic is larger than mine. Could you take a look when you get an extra minute? Best wishes. WBardwin (talk) 00:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)