User:WBardwin/Archive 6 (July - Dec 2007)

Material from WBardwin's Discussion Page

July 1 through December 31, 2007

____

format

Hello. Please note that when you deleted a paragraph from Kiva, you left an extra blank line between two sections, which I later deleted. A single blank line immediately before or after a section heading has no effect on the appearance of the article, but more than one blank line actually alters the format. Michael Hardy 19:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The Barbaro newbie

Well.. I tried, I got a specialist in. But I guess I rather regret dropping Giano in with your poor put-upon newbie<cough>. See User talk:Giano II, these contribs, and this section on Talk:Barbaro family. Still, we have to start from AGF, I quite agree. It got wore out, though. See you around! Bishonen | talk 09:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC).

My..........I don't suppose my note started it all, but sorry to bring you and Giano into this. It doesn't seem likely that reason will win out with this newby. I hope the article ultimately survives, since I remember a few of the Barbaro names from history classes. Best to you both. WBardwin 09:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, no, your note had nothing to do with starting it–the roots seem to go quite deep! I must stop looking up the stuff, the fascination is becoming quite unhealthy... Good grief, look at this little lot! [/me falls off the chair in despair ] Don't worry about Giano, he seems quite happy! Bishonen | talk 10:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC).

Tendrils winding everywhere-----it's like looking at a motor accident. He seems to be an ambitious soul (or perhaps an ambitious multiple personality)? AGF or not, I was a little naive in my original reading! Thanks for all your efforts. WBardwin 10:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing my user page. And yeah, this is a really head-ache inducing situation. The Barbaro family talk gives a kind of general overview. (But does not supply aspirin). --Haemo 22:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

You are surely welcome. WBardwin 07:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Admins -- anyone watching my page?-- now msn autoblocks!

To request assistance with an autoblock: IP address: 65.54.98.109 Blocking admin: The Rambling Man Autoblock ID: 563825 Original block reason: Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Thost". The reason given for Thost's block is: "Abusing multiple accounts". Your account name (if you have one): WBardwin

Folks -- I'm an "msn" customer, with IP numbers assigned in some random pattern. You aren't hitting your target when you block these numbers. Please release. Thanks. WBardwin 07:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Done

Done. I can't believe the irony, W. Thost is the Barbaro hoaxer. Try now, I hope you haven't got any more blocks. Bishonen | talk 08:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC).

I've removed the template. Darn, did you just stop trying? Are you there? Bishonen | talk 08:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC).

Just signed off and then back on to try and shift IP's. But I was just able to edit and "undo". There has been a rash of people fighting, yet again, over BC/AD and BCE/CE on several articles on my watchlist. Thanks for watching, Bish. I do appreciate you. WBardwin 08:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Manual of Style Policy on BCE/CE vs. BC/AD

Please have a look at the guideline as stated at WP:DATE#Eras. "When either of two styles are acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change." This means that, as a compromise and in order to avoid ceaseless reversions and bickering, articles stick to their original year convention, barring some particularly strong and specific reason. I've accordingly restored the original BC convention in the articles Threshing-board and Minoan civilization. (I'm not going to presume to do the same at Hebrew language, because the religious connections of the subject matter could conceivably be deemed a "substantial reason.") Wareh 15:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your note -- I'm well aware of the guidelines and often cite them myself. At the time of these edits, I was reverting an anon contributor who was making CE to BC and anti-abortion edits on a number of pages. CE seemed to make more sense to me on all three of these articles. In regard to a "substantial reason", my training in anthro/history makes me a BCE/CE advocate, as the term is more neutral and less culturally loaded. Consequently, I would consider any article on culture, particularly prehistoric, i.e. Minoan, or on an invention predating the birth of Christ, i.e. Threshing-board, to be better served by BCE/CE. Hebrew language, as you implied, speaks for itself. However, I am not militant on this topic. Best wishes. WBardwin 22:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, and I'm sorry if I went too far in any of my assumptions. If your reasoning were accepted as a Wikipedia guideline, we would use BCE/CE for all the articles (since every article is held to the standard of neutrality), but it's simply not that way. I too have a Ph.D. in a subject matter "predating the birth of Christ" (I wouldn't refer to him as Christ), but whereas it's true that my academic discipline uses CE/BCE more widely than Wikipedia, I find it absurd that pre-Common-Era subjects have any special status under the existing guideline. To the contrary, the whole issue doesn't arise unless some distinction from pre-CE is necessary! Bottom line, I think the guideline is plenty clear about not deviating from the original choice without a more substantial reason than can be produced for the Minoan and threshing articles. Its whole point is to keep anyone from being an "advocate" either way, which is distracting. I would encourage you to weight your individual inclinations & judgments less when making these interventions. Respectfully, Wareh 23:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

MMM talk page

I have already explained that my comments about name calling referred to the adjectives used about historical participants under discussion. My sincerest apologies if you thought they were personal. If you check my discussion with other editors (except certain narrow minded image cops), you will find I generally try to choose my words carefully. Again, I am sorry my comments led to a problem. --Robbie Giles 01:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem, our comments just overlapped. It is nice to see another Idahoan here. Your response seemed hypersensitive (given the benign nature of my suggestion) and with the article's history of conflict, I guess with good reason. But, please, assume that I'm trying to help! I'm not a perfect editor, by any means, but I do try and contribute. Again, congratulations on how the article is shaping up. WBardwin 01:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a slope filled with slippery places. I am very a-feared we will get side-tracked and lose what has been accomplished by lots of good editors. So just think of me as a pair of noids.

I am not a native Idahoan. We moved north fifteen years ago and just love it here. We even moved my mom up from San Antonio. Driving home today (as I was stopped for highway construction actually) I had a chance to view the lovely Palouse wheat fields and the mountains in the distance. Beats Dallas-Fort Worth gridlock any day. --Robbie Giles 01:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Ebionite talk

I realize that you have been safeguarding your recent feature article (congratulations, by the way), but I am puzzled by your recent removal of material from the talk page. Although you may have more information about this particular editor and his comments, I am of the opinion that talk pages are for talking, come heck or high water. I remove material from the talk pages only if it is clearly vandalism or obscene (by my own generic definition, I suppose) and urge others to do the same. Best wishes. WBardwin 23:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Bardwin, I moved the Phillips material to Archive 5, if that's what you meant. Any material I removed without archiving was directed against me personally, and I found it to be extremely offensive. The talk pages are not for discussing my personal life outside of Wikipedia. A particular editor with an axe to grind seems to want to expose my "sins" all over Wikipedia. It's all character defamation as far as I'm concerned, and I will probably petition AN/I at some point to have him banned. Hope this helps. Ovadyah 17:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks, of course, are subject to removal. And I have looked over this user's somewhat peculiar history on the topic. So, forgive me if was intruding, but safeguarding talk pages is particularly important to me as it provides Wikipedia's history to all participants. Best...........WBardwin 20:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to restore any material that you think was removed inappropriately. Cheers. :0) Ovadyah 22:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello WBardwin What exactly are you calling a personal attack? The POV of that entire artical has been crafted by Ovadyah . Afew times in the now archived talk pages he has claimed to not be an Ebionite when his POV was showing through. Other times hes claimed to be an Ebionite but not of Phillips group. It was important for thoes involved to see the POV he is realy pushing.

I also agree safegauarding talk pages is important however this user has for over a year not only quickly archived problemic facts regarding scholars opinions.... to almost any topic without even discussing it. Many times archiving very troubling evidences out of order from thier post on the talkpage to confuse the issues. Not only that once these jumbbled up talk pages are away from the view of most people he further edits them. Anyone involved in that artical that has wanted it NPOV'ed has had thier edits to the article instantly removed and the edit summary title"vandalous POV" even if the editors first posted the changes on the talk page and the post was ignored or archived byOvadyah. If an editor that has not has his comments adresses on the talk page then changes the article back again Ovadyah starts the 3 revert count. He knows the system well. placed at 20:02, 14 July 2007 by 69.29.128.182.

That is a malicious lie. I have never 3RR'ed you or anyone else on the Ebionites article. However, I have reported you to WP:PAIN, where the admins warned you and blocked you three times for personal attacks. That is why, I presume, you no longer bother to log in. Ovadyah 02:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Ovadyah buddy, if you look at the reasons given by the admins for the blocks you will see they were not for attacking you. they seem to have had problems with me bring evidence to theWP:PAIN after your accusations. I didnt say you ever 3rr,ed anyone so no malicious lie, but feel free to report such a thing. The count is always started and you post in the summary RT and 2nd RT so if someone like me doesnt want to be blocked again over wikipedianlawyering tactis we let the the issue rest even thoe the post in the talk page go unanswered or just archived away quickly. Nazirnenmystic

Hello. On removal of material from talk pages, which is the topic of this segment of my talk page by the way, I have the following opinions:

I do not believe that material should be removed from an article's talk page, unless: 1) it damages material placed by another editor, with the intent of vandalism 2) it changes or removes material placed by another editor, with the intent of censorship or deception, or 3) it is clearly obscene. This allows us to preserve our "written" history and prevents the presentation of a personal pov.

The content of Editor's talk pages is at the editor's discretion, of course.

Personal attacks by any editor against another editor are unacceptable, and can be removed at will from any talk or article space.

I strongly believe that material placed on any talk page should be carefully considered. Material placed "off the cuff" or as an emotional response is likely to create problems rather than solve them.

My initial comment to Ovadah was regarding a comment he removed from a talk page without comment. Our subsequent discussion and my review of the talk page history has reduced my concern about the incident. I did not accuse anyone of making a personal attack. And lastly, please, 69.29.128.182, either sign in to Wikipedia or at least sign your posts on talk pages. It makes things much simpler. Best. WBardwin 02:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Programming wish

Hi Bishonen! General question -- can you point me to the techies who recently allowed us more review on our watchlist? I have a "wish", as my watchlist grows and grows, to be able to sort the list by topic. I would like to be able to call up list A, B, or C - and review activity in those specific areas. Does this sound like others might find it useful too? If you know anyone who is doing programming in this area, please let me know. WBardwin 23:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, W. You're supposed to request stuff like that at Wikipedia:Bugzilla. But... I don't quite know how to put this. Perhaps I've just been unlucky. But the fact is, I've taken away the impression that the developers like to give us nifty new features that they come up with themselves... but don't so much like fulfilling requests. At least, any requests that I've made (that's maybe like, uh, one), or that I know of that friends/wikiacquaintances have made, have just, well, been sucked into the Bugzilla and never heard of again. You never get a reply, or learn why your request isn't being entertained. At least that's my experience. It's been a while since I tried, so the nerds may have gotten more gracious, I don't know. Summary: apply at Bugzilla, but don't get your hopes up. Bishonen | talk 23:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC).

Thanks for the note -- no hurry about my stuff, usually anyway. I agree that "Bugzilla's" reputation is less than steller. I think I've put in two requests -- apparently into the ozone. I put the note above on your page, on User:JRM's (who I've not seen lately) talk and on Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). I thought if I spread the idea around, someone might notice. And I know people read your talk page, if only for a smile! As I approach 600 pages on my watch (I know --only 600!), I find I would just really like to look at topics in isolation. For example, lately I've started working on articles on the Canadian/American Fur trade, 1820-1840, and some more distantly related articles as well. If I could sort those into a minor watchlist, I could keep track of what is happening to my most recent efforts. I thought that it would be useful for articles relating to any Wiki-project people belong to as well. Do you personally see a use for this feature? Best.....WBardwin 02:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, JRM—sigh— he pretty much quit a year ago.[1]. :-( A "script" might be an idea also. Scripts are bits of code (written by someone else, I hasten to add) that you put into your User:WBardwin/monobook.js page. You wouldn't notice any difference between what the script does for your watchlist individually, and what sitewide watchlist features do. Check out scripts here, or request one: Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts. Or have a word with my man User:Zocky, ask him if he has written, or knows about, a script of the kind you want. I have some great scripts of Zocky's. Bishonen | talk 12:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC).

Thanks for the advice. There is really no hurry, just me trying to tweek the status quo as usual. Too bad about JRM. I always found him pleasant, helpful and knowledgable. But, sadly and increasingly, that seems to be the type of editor and administrator that ends up leaving Wikipedia. You have to wonder why? I hope something doesn't push you over the edge, Bishonen. But, then, you can always call up Bishzilla!! Best.............WBardwin 01:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah... well, I believe JRM left because the wiki time expenditure was messing up RL for him. That was my impression. He kept the faith. I'm the opposite, I have time (currently) but little faith. I don't know if you've noticed how much the project is tipping over right now, from the Indians to the Chiefs, as it were. Well, I dunno, it probably always seemed that way. But I'm disillusioned, yes. Illustrations: this so-called Featured article review of one of my FAs. And this more recent encounter with the Biography Assessment Drive. Not so much fun anymore. I stop putting my stuff on FAC, I protest, many people protest, Geogre protests all the time, but I don't think any of us are getting through. Bishonen | talk 15:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC).

I'm sorry things are hitting you hard. I find you to be an excellent writer and enjoy "your" articles, even if I know nothing about the topic. I've certainly noticed a more restrictive, argumentative environment since my extended absence at the turn of the year. Several things, including article assessment, frantic footnoting and increasingly authoritative templates, are getting under my skin as well. As a member of the biography project, I just placed a comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Assessment (Project is Subjective and Non-productive), but as the assessment trend is Wikipedia wide............? I presume that everyone is frantic to prove that Wikipedia is as accurate and reliable as other sites in response to periodic negative media exposure. But all of these efforts, IMO, are swinging far wide of the mark. I suspect there are many more moderate editors that would agree. How to find them is another matter. Hang in there! WBardwin 05:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Apologies

I'd like to apologize as I seem to have unwittingly reverted some of your edits on LeGrand Richards. I'm not entirely sure how this happened—usually I get an edit conflict notice, but this time my edit went through and I wrecked some of what you had done. Sorry! –SESmith 01:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Just trying to correct spelling errors in a recent edit. WBardwin 02:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Your "accusation"

When I said that your tone was not civil, I was referring to the sarcasm. "It would be a shame if kids had to open a book." If you did not mean to be sarcastic, please correct me - but I think that you did, seeing as sincerity would have defeated your point. I grant that you have the right to express your opinion, but sarcasm is truly unnecessary. As for consensus, I was merely expressing my impression that the consensus is to require in-line cites in articles. If this is not so, I still think that in-line cites are important, and so, as the GA reviewer, would like to see them before I pass the article. If you still feel this is unnecessary, you can re-nominate it later and I'll bypass it for another editor to look at. Cheers, Corvus coronoides _talk 20:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Note that I did not nominate the article -- I have never nominated one, although I was tempted once. As I don't think the review system is objective and useful, it seems a waste of editors and reviewers time. As for sarcasm, I'll admit it. How many of our articles, from topic sentence to references, do you think end up in teachers' in boxes? Is that Wikipedia's real purpose? If so, we should all be paid for the effort. WBardwin 20:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry that you feel that the review system is not useful, although I agree that it is subjective. I staunchly believe that Wikipedia's true purpose is to provide easily accessible, accurate information, and, as I have already stated, in-line cites are an important part of this. As for the review system, it gives editors a standard to work toward - a goal, and this greatly improves Wikipedia's article quality. Cheers, Corvus coronoides _talk 20:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, W, long time. I have commented here. Frutti di Mare 23:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC).

Pithouses versus dugouts

Hi, wvbailey here. If you are still interested, I added an image to pithouse (strangely named dugout) that my wife and I took while on vacation in the "Anasazi/Puebloan" vicinity of New Mexico. I added a second image on the talk page, slightly different. Fascinating stuff. I bought three books and have been reading and moving a bit of what we photographed (as I don't have to worry about copyright) slowly into pithouse, kiva, sipapu, and maybe kokopelli. If you are so inclined, I would support your effort to split pithouse from dugout; if not so inclined I might just do it myself. As the pithouse is a precursor to the kiva I would therefore argue it really needs to be included in the Native American initiative. I believe that there is quite a bit of info available, e.g. quite a few years ago as a family we visited a site in the Escalante region of Southern Utah and as I recollect there is a reconstruction there, or at least an excavation there of a very early, and very impoverished, "Anasazi/Pueblo" site that included a community of pithouses [?] (my family was probably tired and hot and cranky so we didn't get to stay very long . . . too bad . . . hmm will have to research.) wvbaileyWvbailey 00:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi! I noticed your efforts on Kiva and appreciate your interest in the Dugout/pithouse article. Neither of them get much attention. If you are interested in continuing to edit on Southwest architecture, take a look at Pre-historic Southwestern Cultural Divisions (probably to be renamed in the future, see talk page). This article has been a long term goal of mine and is just getting out of the "wish" stage. I intend to add larger sections on agriculture/irrigation and warfare. Settlement patterns/architecture would fit right in. Look forward to working with you. WBardwin 01:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi again: I quickly read the "emerging page" -- it seems to emerging nicely. One thought would be to reference the Pecos Classification and Robert's Terminology (cf p. 8: Rohn, Arthur H. and Ferguson, William M., 2006, Puebloan Ruins of the Southwest, University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque NM). Rohn and Ferguson have some very nice maps (pp. 10-17) showing migrations by era, too. I ran into yet more-but-similar classification-tables (more like matrices, actually, for the various "nations") in the two books on rock art that I have: (1) Schaafsma, Polly, 1980, Indian Rock Art of the Southwest, School of American Research, Sata Fe, NM; (2) Malotki, Ekkehart and Weaver, Donald E. Jr, 2002, Stone Chisel and Yucca Brush: Coloroado Plateau Rock Art. Kiva Publishing, Walnut, CA.

I kind of started into this with a curiousity about rock art and pre-literate symbols, and the question of whether these people used numbers (in particular tally marks or counters). From what I can gather (in a very general sense) the earliest drawings tended to be (what Schaafsma calls p. 3) "representational" and then moved to "abstract" and then in the last phases moved back to "representational" again (e.g. kachini dolls); Malotki and Weaver have a fascinating classification of rock art on p. xxi. But one author worries that the difficulty of pecking designs in rock may have limited their efforts, which they chose to spend on their pottery and on murals in their kivas. I've had no luck answering the numbers question. wvbaileyWvbailey 03:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Editing Utah War

I can't imagine why you are reverting my edits of the Utah War. You state something about Mountain Meadow's Massacre, an area I didn't even touch. I believe the Mountain Meadow Massacre deserves its own section and should probably NOT be mentioned further here as being parenthetical. I've read extensively on this "war", including this period of western history and believe that what I added gave more information as well as giving more credit and information on Thomas Kane--a man that probably saved many hundreds if not thousands of lives. D'lin 00:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for talking. Did you read my note? Yes, I "undid" your edit, but am now taking time to review it and have begun tucking bits back in. I "undid" not because your material is not useful, but because I'm hoping that a few editors here will come up with a new expanded outline for the Utah War article. And I noticed your edit to Thomas L. Kane and, as I started that article, I too would like to expand his role in the Utah War article. But, it is always productive in Wikipedia to discuss major changes before they become conflicts. For example, do you think such a strong presentation of the LDS/Young pov in the topic paragraph is the best approach? Usually the topic paragraph leads the reader into the next section, which I think should be the US political scene rather than events in Utah. So, come to the Utah War talk page and let's start an outline. And just look over the work going on on Mountain Meadows massacre. They have worked very hard and are now to a review and tight editing point on a major revision. Some of that information will be coming into Utah War. Where do you think we should put it? Oh, and people are getting very fussy lately about references and footnotes, so please add the material you are using to the reference section. Can we work together to improve the Utah War and Kane articles?

I see by your talk page that you are fairly new. So be aware that posting on User Pages is, by Wiki convention, reserved for each individual user. We talk to one another on talk/discussion page, so I've moved your comment to my talk page. And please note, by convention again, when you type in all caps or use bold, people think that you are shouting at them. I hope you will forgive the advice if it is unwelcome. Best wishes. WBardwin 00:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Warnings

I would recommend that once you get to the second time, place the respective warning on the editor's page. Warnings are the way to helping them understand the problem and is a stepping stone to stronger actions. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 00:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't "warn" people in general, as I have no authority here. If I think the editor has potential, and can come to understand the NPOV perspective, I usually contact them and encourage them to make an effort. This one doesn't strike me as too flexible. Thanks again. WBardwin 00:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

You are more kind than I am. I used to only post different forms of welcome on their page; make them aware that we di have policies, etc. I have gotten rather impatient; now when I have an editor that engages in multiples reverts I always try to post a warning. There are several that can be used. You have the same authority that anyone else does. I try not to get carried away with posting; it has to be something repetitive for me to act. You are right to also consider how new they are; sometimes it is just instruction that is needed. You are more than wise enough to know what is best. Cheers. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 01:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

"Censor"?

Regarding this edit summary, please don't make accusations. There is a link to Wikipedia is not a forum at the very top of that talk page and I was merely trying to enforce that. If you have a difference in opinion, fine, but you should talk about your own feelings rather than guessing at my nonexistant ulterior motive. Meanwhile, I don't see anything productive coming out of a discussion of whether or not South Park is hilarious. --Masamage ♫ 01:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

In response to your comments, whether or not an editor's comment, observation, joke, or rant is productive to the encyclopedia, talk pages are for talking. If we deny people the right to be "heard", even if what they say is nonsense, we deny them the opportunity to learn to be more productive editors. I personally try not to remove anything from talk pages on articles. My only exceptions have been things that are, IMO, clearly obscene and truly viscious personal attacks. I, of course, expect that user talk pages are controlled by users themselves, but I try and follow those same guidelines on my own page. Wikipedia may not have unlimited "space" - but a cheerful comment does not hurt any talk page. On a personal note, one of my strongest personal convictions is that censorship, in any form, limits personal freedom and opportunity. I hope that clarifies my revert. Best wishes. WBardwin 01:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

All that means is that your interpretation of WP:NOT#FORUM is looser than mine. Next time, make your revert if you must, but don't disparage people for doing what they think is best for the encyclopedia. --Masamage ♫ 03:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I see nothing disparaging about "...restore "chat" - let's not censor, talk pages are for talking." Why do you think such a request disparages you? That wasn't my intent. Best.......WBardwin 03:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Joseph Smith, Jr.

Yeah, I'll watch it. Storm Rider just warned anon, and if he does it again I'll block user under the 3RR. Cool Hand Luke 01:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. WBardwin 01:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

BC/AD BCE/CE

Thank you for your comments. You can share your views at the ongoing discussion on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. PHG 01:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Julia Murdock Smith

Julia Murdock Smith, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Julia Murdock Smith satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julia Murdock Smith and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Julia Murdock Smith during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. SESmith 05:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Chicken piccata

Thanks for your contributions to this article. Sounds tasty! Bearian 22:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Not a major effort, but you're welcome. WBardwin 03:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

LDS Church article

Hello W, I entered that "overdone" sentence. My motivation was that it is followed by or preceeded by statements that other Christian churches think the LDS church is nonChristian. It stating LDS beliefs clearly about Jesus Christ it can bring into focus that the definition used for being Christian is not centered on the fundamental beliefs, but of 4th century doctrines created by men. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 14:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Storm. I did think the original sentence was a little overdone, with modest overtones of Catholic/Protestant images of Christ as well as the LDS viewpoint. If your objective is to define the Church's view of Christ and his central importance, we could use a quote or paraphrase one. The material below is from lds.org/church library or we could get something from the LDS encyclopedia. As it was, I only modified the sentence a little, which you are of course free to revert. Best. WBardwin 04:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Jesus Christ is the Only Begotten Son of God the Father in the flesh. He was the Creator, He is our Savior, and He will be our Judge. Under the direction of our Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ created the earth. Through His suffering in the Garden of Gethsemane and by giving His life on the cross—that is, by performing the Atonement—Jesus Christ saves us from our sins as we follow Him. Through His Resurrection, Jesus Christ saves us from physical death. Because He overcame death, we will all be given the gift of resurrection. (lds.org/church library)

I think my objective is to focus the statement on the beliefs of the LDS church that are in common with what is recognized as mainstream Christianity, which I believe is also some of the most fundamental beliefs of the church. The alternative that you have introduced takes the statement in another direction. Though it might be accurate, it does not clarify that which is in common first. If we start with what is in common then prceed to what differentiates I think the result is a more informed article. Question, do you think anything that I stated was not doctrine of the church? If not, is there any value of first introducing that which is common? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 05:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

See Jesus Christ - Principal view - for relevant list. WBardwin 05:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Please help

I'd appreciate it if you would look at the article on White people and then comment on this discussion. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 06:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Pottery

My personal opinions have been kept to the discussion pages. From articles I have only removed irrelevant and incorrect information. Having not attended kindergarten I am unaware of "those lessons we all should have learned" but I would say that preaching about the improvement of attitudes strikes of hypocrisy at best, and more likely nears "attacking others" such as accusing me of "making demands" when I clearly have not done so. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.44.81.7 (talk)

Your assertion: "I have only removed irrelevant and incorrect information." -- this is your "opinion" about the material in question! In my opinion, the material is useful and should remain. Other editors of these articles have agreed to this material in the past. A discussion of material leads to concensus of opinion, a Wikipedia virtue. Definitions on pottery terms, believe me, are very flexible and variable. For example: "Leather hard" has several definitions depending on the pottery tradition and methodology. In the articles, you can talk about, compare and contrast the different definitions but don't assert that your definition is the one and only truth. That is a personal POV and should be discussed with others. WBardwin 01:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Navajo Nation

Just a note that I am starting back in on a edit of the Navajo Nation page. Seems like you and I pay the most consistent attention to it. Given all the other Navajo related pages, I am going to be trying to focus my edits upon "modern" government of the reservation (aka Navajo Nation) by deleting or compacting cultural information located elsewhere. I put some comments on the discussion page under "history". I am not going to venture opinions about the relationship of the United States Government and the Navajo Nation. --Rcollman 11:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Rants

I appreciate your note on my talk page and sympathize with your frustrations, though I think I don't share them to a great degree. (Some of the BLP stuff makes me react with a quizzical "Huh?" but hasn't really riled me up so far.) I can see good points made on both sides of the discussion; I think Rrburke has legitimate concerns about what Wikipedia is saying about who's LDS, and you have legitimate concerns about how the BLP concerns are being enforced throughout the project. I'm mainly trying to help lower the temperature and encourage cooperation despite the mutual annoyances. But I'm also honestly questioning the value of the List of Latter Day Saints article (see my comment/question on the talk page). If you have thoughts about that I'd love to read them. Cheers, alanyst ^/talk/ 02:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Please see my response to your comment on the list page. WBardwin 02:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Potter's wheel and howto tags

Hi,

I've restored the tag to the instructional content here. Tags add cleanup categories to articles so that editors browsing for pages to improve can be pointed in the correct direction. While restoring the content was probably a good move (it's pretty poor, but it can probably be saved), removing the tag wasn't necessary. Chris Cunningham 15:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Not necessary but certainly satisfying. I am generally against allmost all tags (except those, like the merge, which invite discussion), as well as several other recent "innovations" on this site. Tags and templates simply seem authoritative and impersonal to me -- and generally give me the impression that the editor "tagging" the article is either too "good" to do the work himself or too lazy. I do not believe they promote "community" among editors. So, I'll probably end up removing the tag again, and trying to find the time to rewrite the section. These ongoing authoritative changes are probably a major reason why my edit count and time on Wikipedia has significantly dropped during the last year. WBardwin 03:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Cut and paste moves

Hi WBardwin, you recently moved the page Lamuel to Lemuel (Biblical king) by cutting and pasting the contents from one page to the other, splitting the page history. To be compliant with the licence the site uses for content, we are required to maintain the entire history of all pages, and to make them easy to find and to avoid different histories of different pages being mixed together, we try to keep page histories in one place. The cut-and-paste move you performed has now been fixed, but in future, please use the 'move page' function as this not only moves the contents of the page from one page to another but more importantly the history. If you have performed any other page moves by cutting and pasting the contents, please let me know or list the page(s) at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen so that they can be fixed. Thanks, mattbr 09:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Yellowstone NP

Hi WBardwin; I wonder if a word is missing from the Punke quotation.[2]

It is estimated that during the winter of 1874-1875, not less than 3,000 Buffalo and mule deer suffer even more severely than the elk, and the antelope nearly as much.

It doesn't make sense to me as written. Also, I wonder if you would mind making Punke an inline footnote? It may be hard for readers to find otherwise. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

quote is correct as far as I remember (book not at hand today), and is written in a common 19th century vernacular. We use more verbs today. As for inline cites, I don't use them as I do not believe they actually improve the encyclopedia. Make changes if you feel they are absolutely necessary. WBardwin 04:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Autoblock????

Help admins!! This hasn't happened in quite a while. Please release me. WBardwin (talk) 05:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

You are unable to edit Wikipedia because someone using the same internet address (an 'IP address') or shared proxy server as you was blocked. Your ability to edit Wikipedia has been automatically suspended as a result.

Note that you have not been blocked from editing directly. The other user was blocked by Scientizzle for the following reason (see our blocking policy):

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Mr.sag". The reason given for Mr.sag's block is: "Vandalism-only account". This block has been set to expire: 16:13, 11 December 2007.

If you do not understand the reason for this block, you are probably on a shared IP address.

I've left a note at User talk:Scientizzle to see if he/she can unblock. You might also try putting {{unblock-auto}} on this page and see if it gets quicker attention, as described at Wikipedia:Autoblock. alanyst ^/talk/ 06:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Alanyst. Well, these new templates make absolutely no sense to me and there are never any instructions available. While not stupid, I am not a programmer and hate templates of all sorts. So do I just copy this thing? WBardwin (talk) 06:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

In fact you need to copy the whole stuff that is generated when you try to edit, with your IP and the autoblock ID or we simply can't locate your block in the logs :). I removed the template below because it is not complete. -- lucasbfr ^talk 08:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

See above, under my original note. -- that is everything that came across to me when I was blocked. There was no IP number identified. So I can't complete the idiot template. Sometimes I wonder why I even bother logging in. WBardwin (talk) 04:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Look at the "You are currently unable to edit" page, in the "IP blocked?" section. -- lucasbfr ^talk 08:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Try now

Sorry, W, all I get from the autoblock tool now is the "original blockee", who is one User:Mr.sag. The tool no longer gives any autoblock ID... some improvement! Well, I've unblocked Mr.sag and can only hope for the best. Try editing, and please let me know how it goes. Bishonen | talk 09:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC).

Can edit now, but perhaps because the IP shifted. Thanks for your efforts, Bishonen. I have so little patience with these "hoops" these days. WBardwin (talk) 04:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

What gives?

I try to inject a little humour and litten the mood, and you respond by reporting me to an admin? This is on par with children running telling tales to the teacher.

Humour? Involving a third party in a ongoing dispute is simply bad manners, whether on Wikipedia or the real world. You appealed to this administrator, if I am not mistaken, rather than trying to solve the minor issue on the article. I asked you to go to the talk page on the matter, with the aim that other editors on the Kiln article could express their opinion. Instead, you decided to turn the dispute into a series of reverts. You did not come to my talk page until the situation escalated and I pointed out your error in courtesy. I am not insisting that the statement stay in the Kiln article, only that other editors have a chance to see the issue and perhaps come up with a source of the section. Building consensus, for any action, is a Wikipedia goal and should be used even in minor disagreements. WBardwin (talk) 00:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

You are mistaken. I started a discussion on the kiln page, which you did not join until much later: please check the history. Also it was the Admin. who joined the discussion without me asking.

Not all editors are on this site 24/7 and I've been quite busy elsewhere. A discussion should be placed and then time allowed for others to join. I'm sorry if I was mistaken about you seeking out the admin, but you did cite the admin's authority for your position and reverted yet again. If you had left the section in, with a citation requested template or an appeal on the talk page, my opinion would have been brief and we would not have a series of reverts. Others could see the section in question and express their opinion, perhaps a source. If you delete, point blank, then the contended section disappears and others cannot have their say. That is why I reverted in the first place -- placing the issue into history so interested parties could see. While everyone is welcome to edit here, that does not give any of us permission to be completely independent nor stand on our own opinion. Again the concept of consensus. Best wishes. WBardwin (talk) 01:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)