User talk:WBardwin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Hello Wikipedia!

I logged into the system on 17 February 2005, having worked as an "anonymous" for the previous six weeks or so. During that time, I often signed notes and edits with "-W." I made my 5,000th edit on August 28th, 2005. I passed 17,000 edits in May 2008. 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

[edit] Wikipedia links

[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

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

Stubs
Alexander Charles Vasa
Richard R. Lyman
National Woman's Suffrage Association
Idaho Falls Idaho Temple
Common Latter-day Saint perceptions
Bone china
Church of Jesus Christ (Cutlerite)
Charles A. Callis
Dieter F. Uchtdorf
L. Tom Perry
Mary Whitmer
Mormon (prophet)
Marvin J. Ashton
Edward Stevenson
Charles Ferdinand, Duke of Opole
Ensign (magazine)
Amelia Bloomer
Princess Cecilia of Sweden
Cleanup
Standard Works
Navajo mythology
Joseph F. Merrill
Merge
Controversies regarding The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
Jello Belt
Church of Christ with the Elijah Message
Add Sources
Rebaptism (Mormonism)
Pentecostal Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
Wikify
Red dwarf
Hopewell pottery
National Trails System
Expand
Mother of the Nation
Coyote (mythology)
Pre-existence

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

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

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

[edit] Dante (Harry August Jansen)

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

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

[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) 21:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bison

Saw that you made some edits concerning bison. There is another free-roaming herd (though I do not know if it is geneti<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:MarkS/XEB/live.css&action=raw&ctype=text/css&dontcountme=s">cally pure) at the Tallgrass Prairie Preserve [1] in northeastern Oklahoma. It has nearly 3000 bison now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ballred (talk • contribs) 20:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vikings/Mandan

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

[edit] John Gardner (disambiguation)

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

Your logic stands for all other John Gardner's as well. I went to the page looking for a historical person, not the novelist. Even with WP:MOSDAB (and I really could not care less), every notable person should be equally represented on any given disambig page. WBardwin (talk) 00:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Please slow down and get consensus on this. My logic works if there is a John Gardner article - which there was when before you moved it. There has been a lot of discussion about this in several areas. I can see where <first name> <last name> might be a special kind of disambiguation page, but a lot of thinking has gone into the various guidelines and they should be understood and either followed or changed to pass your suggestions for changes on to other editors. I will start a topic at Wikipedia talk:MOSDAB (John User:Jwy talk) 16:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I've done a bit more homework: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Given names or surnames suggests that John Gardner (disambiguation) should not be a disambiguation page at all. This makes sense to me. It should be moved to John Gardner, the disambiguation tags removed from the article and the (disambiguation) page removed. Any objections? I'll ask admins to move the page if I don't hear anything in a couple days. (John User:Jwy talk) 17:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Moved original John Gardner to disambig page, and moved the novelist to John Champlin Gardner, Jr.. Did some cleanup and will continue to work on the extensive list. Found a number of "lost" John Gardners being sent to the novelists page. WBardwin (talk) 01:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Nope, 'fraid not -- changes well underway. John Gardner now goes to the disambig page, as it should. Many, many John Gardners, some without middle names and some with. I've found quite a few hidden John Gardners in the search process. All are notable, all should be found through disambig. I am making changes on the various literature pages as well, so his pen name will direct to his legal name. Why should one John Gardner have Wikipedia's permission to "own" the common name? WBardwin (talk) 01:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
That's not what I said, please assume good faith. Have him as John Gardner(novelist) or (literary novelist). I agree with the disambig page as well, but him going under John Champlin Gardner, Jr. is definitely incorrect. Gwynand (talk) 01:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I changed it to John Gardner (novelist). Typing John Gardner in search will take you to the disambig page ... so I believe we agree on this. Thanks Gwynand (talk) 01:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Are you now going to change the other pages I just finished linking with John Champlin Gardner, Jr.? Let's make one change at a time! WBardwin (talk) 01:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes I would like to help with this... I'll look through your edit history to find them. Do we agree on the disambig name though?Gwynand (talk) 01:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Well -- we have two novelists, the other being John Gardner (thriller writer). If I were that John, I would probably prefer a change of name as thriller writer is not necessarily flattering. I would agree our novelist is more literary, though. WBardwin (talk) 01:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I think (novelist) is OK. John Gardner (Grendel author) seems far and away more notable than this other writer, and it looks like he is the most notable John Gardner from the list. For a crude example... even if a notable young author named Ernest Hemingway arose now, we wouldn't really have to shift all the [[Ernest Hemingway] stuff around. Not to do a total roundabout on all this... but he is probable more notable enough than the lot that he wouldn't need the qualifier. I don't think it is obvious enough to argue about it though.
Another thing... when searching for John Gardner, it makes you click on a link before you get to the disambig page... I don't know how to fix this, could you?Gwynand (talk) 02:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Fashions change -- someday Earnest Hemingway will be a minor author too. With my history background, (even though I like "Grendel") the historical figures are more notable to me. As for "getting to" John Gardner - the Go button will take you to the disambig page. The Search button will take you to a list of "all" references to John Gardner, which is where I have been working. WBardwin (talk)
I found several Google entries referring to him as John C. Gardner -- perhaps another day, another move? Changes ended, for now. WBardwin (talk) 03:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Warren Messner

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

[edit] Utah War

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

[edit] a thank you note

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

[edit] Mormonism and History and History of the LDS movement

Changed your vote? I am definately against merging, primarily because placing the topic in History of the Latter Day Saint movement reduces it to a "one time" issue. The most recent pattern of "faith-promoting" history was (as a BYU trained historian, I sincerely hope) a one time event. But Mormonism and history is a much bigger topic, closer to historiography, having implications from Joseph's time to the present. I don't know if this is the right title for such an article, but we are having a restructuring discussion on the Mormonism and history page. Please drop in and give your two cents. Best wishes as always. WBardwin (talk) 03:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I really don't have time to examine the issue so I decided I'd better abstain. I know you guys will find a good solution without me :) --Trödel 03:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Thanks for the note. I think you'll find that I brought up historiography earlier in the discussion stream, so I agree with you. Mormonism and history is very different from "History of....... anything". That's why I voted against the merge idea.
I think the article should be about the Mormon "place" in history and the historiography of Mormon sources, but most of our readers would have to have the word explained. That's why I think that we should stick to "Mormonism and history" as a title with a careful definition of terms up front. I think comparing the historic world view of Mormon critics, apologists, and moderates is sorely needed in the LDS project. This is where some of the article's previous contents about historic presentations and conflict with authority could fit.
Such a comparison would take up the bulk of the article, but I envision doing it by blocks of historic time. For example, Jan Shipps (the Methodist scholar specializing in Mormon History) sees a change in world view and historic perspective between the very early Church and the Kirtland period, noting that the construct of the Church organization changed people's image of their place in the world. She also points out that the time of LDS isolation in the west created a different world view than that of the LDS Reorganite sects in the midwest. As I said earlier, we have lots of sources, and lots of historians and pseudo-historians to consider as examples.
Mormon world view - our place within history - is intimately tied to the teachings of the Restoration. It gives us our place in history, by linking the LDS movement to the eternities, to the creation, to the Old Testament, to the teachings of Christ, to the New Testament Church. Joseph Smith is the key to these teachings, as well as other history based ideas such as geneaology, sealing, and work for the dead.
Feel free to play with my ideas on an outline, but I would like to work on a solid definition first. Thanks for thinking -- and for getting excited. WBardwin (talk) 05:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I am trying to make sure that we have as clear an outline as possible before actual writing takes place. I hope that you would consider keeping historiography in the title because it directs the article into a definitive path. As long as we define it in the article readers will understand. I am not "committed" to the title, but just appreciate it. As I just explained on the article discussion page, LDS history is not owned by the LDS, but has writen about by historians both within and outside of the movement/church. During the early period of the church their methododologies differed significantly and more recently they are have become more similar in method. I exclude from that sentence those who are not historians, but polemic writers from other religious persuasions. --Storm Rider (talk) 18:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
--take a look at this article and the bibliography -- [2]. 65.54.154.48 (talk) 08:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My perspective

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

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

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

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

Thanks for the reply. No, I don't think you are a "fox ravaging the henhouse". But I'm not so sure about several other admins and people holding administrative power, i.e. your view on the ineffectual ArbCom. From an editor's perspective, some of these folk seem to initiate contention more than they control or alleviate it. But to change metaphors, given that some people thrive on contention (sigh), I suppose it is not unexpected that those who seek authority and responsibility should also get a "high" on the "battle field." But to fight within your own officer corps? That seriously undermines the objectives of the encyclopedia and the morale of the troops. How can we write an encyclopedia when policy development is controlled by a vocal few, protestors are sidelined, and longtime productive editors attacked for expressing frustration? As for a solution, I don't have one, either. But I do appreciate your perspective. WBardwin (talk) 02:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
From current arbcom case: "...keep arbCom's integrity, credibility, and community's trust intact. Really, is that the objective? WBardwin (talk) 10:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Please see User talk:Kosebamse. 65.54.155.48 (talk) 06:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rollback

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

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

[edit] Merge Proposal

Please weigh in on the merger proposal between Persons in the Book of Mormon and List of Book of Mormon people. You are receiving this notice since you were identified as a recent editor on one of those pages. Thanks! --Descartes1979 (talk) 19:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Need your opinion

You've been here at WP for a while, I've seen your edits at Kit Carson go back a while, before I came here. I need an opinion about developing the Kit Carson article a little more. I came across some material in his dictated biography by Dewitt Peters that is quite interesting. It gives some of his Indian fights in detail, more than in Dunlay or Sides. It actually seems to account for his attitudes later when he campaigned against the Navajo.

I've thought about adding it, but I don't want to add much more to the Kit Carson article, it seems to have a nice read to it. I thought I would tweak it a little, then put it back for a GA nomination.

I am thinking about adding the extra Carson and the Indians material in a side article, but am having trouble coming up with an adequate conceptualization of how to categorize it. Would you mind looking at what I have so far, and telling me what your thoughts are? Thanks. --Richiar (talk) 00:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC) proposed Carson side article

I also have a copy of the Carson/Peters bio. Certainly a paragraph summarizing his experience with tribes and battles would be helpful. I don't know how you would title/categorize a distinct article on the subtopic. I do remember there is some sort of category dealing with Indian battles. Will keep my eye out for your edits. Best........WBardwin (talk) 00:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Ah.........how about --Category:Wars involving the indigenous peoples of North America? WBardwin (talk) 00:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Population history of American indigenous peoples GA Sweeps Review: On Hold

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria and I'm specifically going over all of the "World History-Americas" articles. I have reviewed Population history of American indigenous peoples and believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed. I have left this message on your talk page since you have significantly edited the article (based on using this article history tool). Please consider helping address the several points that I listed on the talk page of the article, which shouldn't take too long to fix with the assistance of multiple editors. I have also left messages on the talk pages for other editors and a related WikiProject to spread the workload around some. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 08:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of Natalizumab's clinical results

Looking for some help with an apparent vandalism problem. From its History page, it would appear that someone, at least once and possibly twice (it appears that the first time, the pages were restored by you, and it looks like this characeter "WLU" did the deletions - I thought you might be able to confirm, as I will report him for Vandalsim) deleted the "Brief Summary of Natalizumab's clinical results in Multiple Sclerosis" and "Brief Summary of Natalizumab's clinical results in Crohn's Disease" from the Natalizumab Wiki page [1] - am I correct that you were the first to see the deletion (by WLU), and restored it ? I want to know who did it - put a lot of time into editting formatting that page. Thank You. io-io (talk) 02:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chumash people

I have declined your report to WP:RFPP - there is not enough recent activity to justify protection, nor to justify an IP block. In future, despite your apparent dislike of standard templates, please leave the request on the project page, not the talk page. Thanks! GBT/C 11:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I have contacted an admin who is likely to be more cooperative and interested in the progress of the encyclopedia. And, no, I will not use the templates as they are obstructive and authoritative. WBardwin (talk) 22:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
The templates, particularly when it comes to matter such as requesting page protection, are there for a purpose - there is little point in providing a page where users can request page protection (such as WP:RFPP if people make a WP:POINT of not using it to request protection. The templates, and administrative pages, make things easier for all concerned. If you don't like the wording of the templates, feel free to get consensus for them to be changes, and, of course, feel just as free to contact whichever admin you wish to contact. In the meantime, however, if you wish to leave a message for me you should note that I don't particularly appreciate your tone, so I would be grateful if you would modify it if we have cause to speak again. GBT/C 22:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
It's not the wording of the templates, it is the control the format --the form-- represents. It controls each and every transaction, with no allowance for individual circumstance, editor inexperience, or a lack of good written instructions. It also places all responsibility for inquiry/complaint on the editor with no corresponding obligation on the administrator to research the problem and solve it. So, they generally boosts the administrator's sense of power and control without helping the encyclopedia (as does several recent "policies" established by a vocal minority). In my opinion, templates, authoritative notice boards, the AbCom structure, and several other "recent" innovations, have decreased the community spirit and increased the level of tension at Wikipedia during my fairly long tenure. I find them all annoying, even disgusting, and feel they actually impede building the encyclopedia. WBardwin (talk) 22:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, you're entitled to your opinion, and whilst that may range over a wide variety of topics, perhaps I can address just one. I only picked up your request for page protection because no-one else had - probably precisely because you left it on the talk page and not on the main request for page protection page. Your request was languishing on the talk page for 9 hours at a time when other requests were being dealt with within 10 or 15 minutes. By all means, reject templates if you think they are disgusting, or because you think they boost an adminstrator's sense of power and control. Don't, however, at the same time, moan at an administrator who declines your request by effectively (and unsubtly) accusing them of not being co-operative or being interested in the progress of the encyclopaedia. GBT/C 22:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
You've since added the above, plus a little more, to my talk page. I fall within the helpful category, but clearly if you disagree with my decision you're not going to perceive me as helpful. At the end of the day, however, there remains insufficient vandalism for semi-protection to be justified either now, or when it was first (improperly) requested. I'm not lecturing you for having an opinion - if you look back at the above threads, it was you who chose to lecture me...I merely pointed you at the accepted way of doing things, and it was you who chose to then accuse me of not being co-operative or interested in the progress of the encyclopaedia. Brand me as "unhelpful" if you like. I've been branded as worse, and my hide is thickening rapidly. GBT/C 23:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
If you are truly cooperative -- then look at the problem and seek a creative solution. Declining because it doesn't fit the "established parameters" of semi-protection, or failing to consider warning/blocking an IP editor(s) who is repeatedly deleting a particular section, does not solve the problem. As for time lag, this deletion by various IP numbers has been going on, repeatedly since Spring 2006. What does 9 hours matter? I'm just glad that someone reads the talk page. For that I thank you. WBardwin (talk) 23:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I've had a brief look back at the history (time prevents me from going back in much detail) but I think I agree that there is a very slow motion edit war going on, but potentially both sides are at fault for simply reverting and not discussing the reasoning behind either the inclusion, or the deletion. Semi-protection would work only against the IP, and wouldn't necessarily resolve the underlying issues (I suspect it would just start up again when the protection was lifted). Would a solution be to fully protect the page, point everyone concerned at the talk page, and have a bit of informal mediation? GBT/C 09:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
A couple of regular editors, including me, have a section on the talk page about the problem and we have written the current IP# asking them for their reasons and explaining the need for consensus. I personally have placed a note or two on other IP #'s in the past couple of years. But the deleting editor(s) don't talk to anyone. Mediation wouldn't work if one side of this issue doesn't talk or even acknowledge the other's existance. Using semi-protection seemed one way to determine if the editor(s) in question use IP# only or if they are registered users. If we block IP's from the article page, we might ID someone specific to talk to. An admin friend of mine (see User talk:Dmcdevit) has temporarily blocked the IP number and invited the editor to join in discussion. Thanks for taking the time to look - it is a slow motion edit war, but I don't think the regular editors have been toooo much at fault. WBardwin (talk) 04:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Series Reverts

Please stop following my edits and reverting them. You seems to have reverted all my edits I made today just because I have disagreed with you about salt-glaze pottery. Please at least review the other edits, and if you decide on each on their individual edits. I am sure you not do wish to seem petty but it that is an easy judgement to make based on these actions.

In my long history here -- several years, I have never been blocked. But I have reverted your submissions. Why? IP's like yours, with this type of behavior, are often blocked. You are obviously an experienced editor trying to hide behind an IP#. Why? Are you in trouble here? Are you doing things that others object to? Consensus means you should contribute rather than criticize. You should work with others rather than delete other's work. As for courtesy -- deleting and the citing policy can be a sign of a control freak. Are you trying to control these articles? As for being polite -- sign your posts! Obviously you know you should. WBardwin (talk) 21:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
"Are you in trouble here?" ???? Please get a sense of proportion - this is just an online encylopedia; nothing more. And whilst talking about courtesy please do not make accusations that are without merit.
If you do not sign your posts (using for ~ marks - little wolf), I will delete any additional messages from your present IP. WBardwin (talk) 22:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Flying J

Just a quick explanation of my removal of Flying J from the intro paragraph to Ogden, Utah -- I wasn't arguing against the notability of Flying J in general, just against its inclusion in the intro paragraph. It's far from the largest employer in the city, and has really done little to shape Ogden's history, economy, or culture; as such, I'd say that it definitely doesn't belong in the opening summary. I think it'd be very appropriate farther down, though it's definitely not worth battling about. Cheers! Pitamakan (talk) 23:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Standard Works

Don't know how the Standard work (disambiguation) page got so Speedily Deleted. But you clearly need a disambiguation page. You don't want people to think that every time a professor refers to a "standard work" on a subject he means the books here? --Ludvikus (talk) 04:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't involved in the speedy delete process -- that is usually initiated by an administrator. I just noticed today that the stub article/disambig was missing. To request reinstatement, you might want to contact a Wikipedia administrator to review the process. I've found User:Bishzilla, User:Dmcdevit, and User:Mel Etitis to be helpful -- but they are often busy, so be patient while waiting for a response. See also Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. Best wishes. WBardwin (talk) 06:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] You didn't like the "flood" pun?

When editing Flood Control Act, I saw the pun but left it as "no harm, no foul". I actually kind of liked it; each time I saw it, it gave me a bit of a smile in a dreary day .... Don'tKnowItAtAll (talk) 16:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I really have no objection. It was kind of cute. So if consensus is to revert, fine with me. WBardwin (talk) 21:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I think we're probably the only ones who really saw it or cared.  :) It'd take more time to gather consensuse! LOL Don'tKnowItAtAll (talk) 12:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] LDS Church article

I removed the added material because it is poorly worded, POV, and inappropriate to the article itself. it is far to detailed for a general article, and clearly written in a POV tone. Not to mention that it is inaccurate. Smith didn't want to become "king" of the US. In fact, Richard Bushman points out in Rough Stone Rolling, that Smith ran for president specifically because they had no alternative, as both parties were not helping the Mormons fight of the mobs. Please stop re-adding false information, even if it was added in good faith. Bytebear (talk) 23:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

My mantra: Almost every good faith edit is valuable. Research, verify, rewrite --------------- but don't delete! I have been around the LDS project/articles for a long time. You can check the quality of my edits there and in other places. I generally will not remove good faith edits -- but I may move them, modify them, verify them, and correct them. I will, more than likely, revert when I see others delete without making similar efforts. As for this one ------ "king" is accurate in several senses, even though there are errors in this wording. JSmith had recently announced the priesthood concept of an "eternal kingship" and the newspaper took full advantage of the related political fallout. I agree that the topic is better covered in other articles -- but in my opinion there is no reason that a condensation of the edit -- even a sentence could not have been retained. WBardwin (talk) 02:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't accusing you of bias, or pushing a POV, but I did not and still do not see anything in that edit worth salvaging. Good faith is fine, but it isn't always appropriate. I would recommend taking it to the talk page of the article if you still feel the edit is worth merit. Bytebear (talk) 03:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent comment

In reference to your comment at the LDS project page - Are there any polygamists in the US besides those affiliated with the LDS movement? I seriously doubt it, but I could be wrong. Do you know of any? --Descartes1979 (talk) 22:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Descartes1979 -- polygamy in the United States has a long, abeit shadowy history. After all, it has always been socially discouraged and is now illegal! Certainly the Scotch-Irish and some Welsh settlers carried some long standing multiple partner traditions here from Europe. Early LDS traditions fit nicely into utopian and communal groups established during the mid-1800's who had varying marriage systems, including group marriage and polygyny. There is also some evidence in the American South for multiple partners, particularly after the Civil War. Small numbers of American Muslims have been around for a long time, again with a very low profile. And many Native American tribes practiced polygamy (generally polygyny) and European Mountain men often took native wives and adopted the practice. Some tribes seem to have continued the practice into the 20th century. However, the Utah based LDS Church's practice was the most public and got the most press. And they were the target of early, and continuing, anti-polygamy laws. And, of course, the larger movement birthed the several current fundementalists sects who practice polygamy.
The relatively modern Christian polygamy movement [3] [4] (however large or small -- again info is sketchy) is the most obvious non-LDS group. They certainly don't want anyone to think they have any connection with Joseph Smith. I've heard of isolated secular polygamists and American based Jewish groups that practice some variety of polygamy. I also suspect that Muslims practicing polygamy are on the increase in the US, as the practice is increasing in other areas of the world. However, Muslims can't legally emigrate if they publicly say that they are polygamists. I've long expected some legal challenge to the anti-polygamy laws and we may see something as a result of the FLDS/Texas situation. See also [5]. Finding documentation is the real issue on this topic. Best wishes. WBardwin (talk) 09:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like you are the person with the best information for filling out that article then - you should add that information.--Descartes1979 (talk) 01:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I guess. The early historical practice can be documented, at least on a small scale. But I have my concerns about the article's modern focus, as written sources on this topic will all be LDS oriented. There are some graduate papers out there on some of the other groups' family practices, but no publications known to me. I believe that the largest portion of Christian polygamists meet, greet and talk through the internet, primarily to avoid legal complication. I know of no written source for them. WBardwin (talk) 02:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I placed a summary of my paragraph's above on the page. Historians "know" this went on, but sourcing is really ging to be difficult. WBardwin (talk) 00:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hello W—remember the Knight who Fears the Seafood?

I don't know who this is. Do you reckon it might be the ancient and redoubtable Swiss Knight..? Bishonen | talk 17:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC).

Hi Bishonen -- sorry, I can't confirm your suspicion. But the Noble Swiss Knight and his humour is always welcome in my corner of Wikipedia. Hope things are well for you. WBardwin (talk) 02:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

I just wanted to mention that I think you're a great, on the ball editor. Best, A Sniper (talk) 04:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. What a nice thought. I enjoy our occasional interactions as well. Best to you. WBardwin (talk) 04:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Why on the Bio Project?

Hi. Thanks for your message about Joseph Smith, Jr.. I didn't add that tag to article. I just assessed that article. But you are right, The tag should be removed and I'm going to remove it now. Thanks again. :) Solar-Poseidon 08:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. WBardwin (talk) 02:17, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wirt H. Wills

Yep, it's getting better. Keep up the good work. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The Writer's Barnstar
Many thanks on helping out on the Wirt H. Wills article. You are clearly here to improve the pedia by your article contributions. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 12:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Doomsday Book by Connie Willis

Since you responded to some of the comments in the discussion of this article, I just wanted to let you know that I edited a lot of the plot, and added an explanation in the discussion. I just finished reading the book, so what I wrote is more accurate than before but I didn't want to step on anyone's toes. Crito2161 (talk) 19:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hippotherapy, etc.

Ah, my friend, there's more...you haven't yet found Equine Assisted Learning yet! LOL! Note Horse#Assisted_learning_and_therapeutic_purposes I basically don't have strong feelings one way or the other on merging, but apparently the people who are into these things feel they are all very, very different, hence the creation of different articles. Maybe look them all over and drop notes on the assorted talk pages or shoot me a note if you have thoughts to bounce around. Or ask me and my friends at WP:EQUINE for input. Good luck!Montanabw(talk) 04:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

My sister is involved in this therapy style, and I know feelings can run high on the various topics. However, all three of the articles i noted are weak as they stand now. One good strong article could be much more helpful. WBardwin (talk) 04:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Succession crisis

Despite your request, I reverted to "unhide" the background section. Part of my reason for this is practical. How can someone, probably an irregular editor, provide citations if they cannot see that such citations are requested? Also, believe me, three months of posting is truly no time at all in the lifetime of Wikipedia. And, thirdly, I really don't like citation requests in the first place. I class them as a variety of vandalism -- think tagging on a nice clean fence -- and think they would be more appropriate on associated talk pages. It is my general policy, developed slowly during my time here, that I do not delete or "hide" material without cause. If I have concerns about a section, I research, document and rewrite rather than criticize, tag or delete. I hope you will understand my reasoning in this instance. Best wishes. WBardwin (talk) 00:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your good intentions, but your general policy is trumped by WP:PG—specifically WP:V. I have, however, facilitated the potential re-addition of the text (when properly supported with references) by moving the text to the talk page. This is standard Wiki protocol; if you would like to help, please look for supporting reliable sources. Best --Eustress (talk) 14:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I've been around here quite some time, kid. I know how the place works - everything policy related "happens" behind closed "doors". So, sorry, I don't care much about standard Wiki protocol or policies. If the Wiki ideal is concensus then all editors should "vote" on policy issues. But if all editors don't have a voice in developing policy and procedures, no consensus can be reached. Consequently, any appeal to policy and procedure pages leaves me cold. I would urge you to negotiate with other editors -- and sideline "authoritative" (as in "I'm right, look it says so here!") appeals to policy. I would vote for a return of the section to the article space, and will replace it there within a few days. WBardwin (talk) 03:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
You're an imbecile and a jerk (It was not right of you,) calling me a "kid" and appealing to your experience over well-established Wikipedia policies...especially since I reasoned with another editor's logic and returned the page to its prior state yesterday. --Eustress (talk) 18:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
"imbecile and a jerk" - obviously you chose to take offense when none was intended. I wonder why. Well, should I quote from well-established wiki policies on politeness and courtesy - Wikipedia:No personal attacks? Abusing other people on their talk page? You're in violation! Should I report you? Obviously, from your user page you are significantly younger than I, graduating from our Alma Mater many years after I did. You are also "younger" on Wikipedia. "Kid" is hardly derogatory in either instance, often being used in personal discourse as a friendly word in the "real world". Come now, let us grow up here. It is true that many experiences here have made me somewhat cynical about Wiki policies and procedures and particularly cynical about the use of templates and citation requests. I am consequently impatient with people who take action solely based on them or who simply quote them rather than actively working with other editors. I appreciated you leaving the material on the article page, and noted my ideas about improving the section on the talk page. My library on the Succession crisis is somewhat limited, but I have put out a call to another LDS project member who has better sources. Perhaps we can come up with the needed sources or rewrite the section. But, just as quoting policy doesn't help build an encylopedia, neither does taking offense or calling names. WBardwin (talk) 00:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I apologize for my offensive remarks (which I have struck out)—in the future, I will strive to address editor actions and not editor character. To clarify my take on this situation, I felt that "kid" was derogatory (a personal attack, which I shouldn't have matched anyway) and thought your comment was out of place since I had previously resolved your issue, rendering our policy disagreements moot; i.e., I thought I was compromising by going along with you wishes, and then (I felt) you wrote me some condescending message. Anyway, I again apologize for my personal attacks and wish you the best in your future editing. --Eustress (talk) 03:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)