User:WBardwin/Archive 8 (January - December 2009)

This page contains material from the Discussion Page of User:WBardwin from January through December 2009.

Klimt

A quick Google search found numerous references to Klimt and his death by the Spanish flu. These include:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article6206890.ece

http://www.allposters.com/-sp/Eremiten-Hermits-Egon-Schiele-and-Gustav-Klimt-Posters_i2576484_.htm

http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/1295836/1536066

http://www.cinemathequeontario.ca/filmdetail.aspx?filmId=368&archives=1&season=Spring2007

http://futuremodern.blogspot.com/2006/06/more-gustav-klimt.html

Since my revert of the IP was the second revert on the article for the exact same reason (an unexplained deletion of the Klimt reference), I don't find any suggestions of "good faith". You might want to compare the other warnings on the IP's page and compare them with other reverts of the user that I made after I identified this original problem. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 11:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

As a former IP user -- please don't assume that the same person uses the same IP for all edits. Most admins know that IP's can be assigned randomly or are used by institutions. While I don't completely trust internet sources in general - the rate of error on historic issues is very high -- documentation on the cause of death should be used to update the Klimt article. And as I sent you a polite note, I would appreciate the courtesy of a polite response rather than a lecture. WBardwin (talk) 01:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

There is a discussion on the talk page of the flu article on sources relating to Klimt and others. As for the IP in question, you can see for yourself that he/she has a pattern of NEVER using edit summaries despite being asked several times to do so. Also after tonight it appears that the IP is a sock puppet of User:Xmike920 (see[1]) -- his/her edits follow the same pattern as the IP including the total lack of edit summaries. The IP or Xmike, of course, could straighten everything out by actually extending a little courtesey and explaining himself/herself. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

		The Editor's Barnstar
		Keep up the good work on the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saint article. I like your work. Ninja247 (talk) 17:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Surnames by Country

The discussion for Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 June 6#Category:Surnames by country in which you participated was closed as delete and is now under review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 June 25#Category:Surnames by country. Your participation and input is invited. Alansohn (talk) 05:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

please follow links

hey... click on the external links for Celadon. they need to go. On my browser, they pop up as reported attack-sites. thanks Seb az86556 (talk) 23:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

What is the current listing status for thailex.info?

Site is listed as suspicious - visiting this web site may harm your computer.

Part of this site was listed for suspicious activity 7 time(s) over the past 90 days.

What happened when Google visited this site?

Of the 329 pages we tested on the site over the past 90 days, 11 page(s) resulted in malicious software being downloaded and installed without user consent. The last time Google visited this site was on 2009-08-05, and the last time suspicious content was found on this site was on 2009-08-05.

Malicious software includes 13 scripting exploit(s), 1 trojan(s).

Malicious software is hosted on 5 domain(s), including gumblar.cn/, q05.ru/, shoponlinefilmsite.cn/.

This site was hosted on 1 network(s) including AS4750 (CSLOXINFO).

---

so...can you self-revert?:) Seb az86556 (talk) 23:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

- :I looked before I reverted and my browser shows no suspicious activity. The concerns above may be valid, but doesn't take away the value of the photos. We should probably find something better, however. Feel free to revert if you would like. WBardwin (talk) 23:24, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I added a small-font warning for now. Seb az86556 (talk) 23:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Cherokee removal

Thanks for your message. Yes, it's out of my area, but here's a quote from Cherokee Removal: Before and After, ed. by William Anderson: "Without a doubt the best work dealing with the problems and factionalism among the Cherokee after removal is Morris L. Wardell, A Political History of the Cherokee Nation, 1838–1907 (Reprint, Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1977). The reprint contains a very useful bibliographical essay…." Sounds like you need that book! —Kevin Myers 19:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Kevin. I'll add it to my library list -- something from 1977 is always a little harder to find, given library budgets these days. Best..........WBardwin (talk) 00:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Chanur Edits - Mahendo'sat limbs

Among your numerous edits to the page on the Chanur novels, you added an assertion that the mahendo'sat are six-limbed. Do you have a source for this assertion? Cherryh herself does not make that claim in discussing the mahendo'sat in the information on races appended to Chanur's Venture. Doug (talk) 00:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

As I recall, it is in the "Pride of Chanur", initial description of the species. It is not reflected in illustrations I've seen, probably because the artist(s) can't figure out the anatomy and how it would work. I'll try and reread the first few chapters of the book asap. Thanks for noticing the edits. WBardwin (talk) 23:58, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Please do; I just finished re-reading the whole series. They are one of my favorite sets of stories. I just yanked out Pride and re-read first three chapters, and there was no comment on number of arms at all, but I'm not always the most careful of readers.  :) Doug (talk) 19:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

At quick glance, the first hint is on p. 68 (I think) of my paperback copy of the Pride. They are constructing a dummy space suit to trick the kif, and Py mentions that it looks like a Mahe' demon, but is lacking two appendages. It's my favorite of Cherryh's sf, too, but I'm fond of one of her fantasy series as well. Still looking......... WBardwin (talk) 22:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Pierre's Hole

I wrote some things on the dicussion page of Pierre's Hole I hope you will respond to. ...Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metrodyne (talk • contribs) 06:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Thanks for the heads up on your note. All "good faith" edits are welcome. Please familiarize yourself with the basic mechanisms and policies at Wikipedia and then make appropriate changes. Sources for significant corrections should be cited. There are many source citing formats used here, but you can begin by using a standard footnote method as used in high school and college papers. Please look over your concerns -- and read the entire article -- before making any corrections. For example, Pierre's Hole is the subject/title of the article, but Teton Basin and Teton Valley are mentioned in regard to later settlement. A separate article on Teton Basin might be in order, but does not yet exist. And the image in the article highlights the Teton Range, rather than specifically Pierre's Hole. I don't think our image bank has a better photo - but you might be able to find one and submit it to Wikipedia. Best Wishes. WBardwin (talk) 02:17, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Mormon Missionaries

I expressed my view on this issue in the deletion discussion on commons - I am not an administrator on commons so I can't close the discussion - so I elected to vote on it instead. I'd suggest you express your view there as well. --Trödel 12:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the head's up. I voted as well. WBardwin (talk) 22:27, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Tks

Thank you WBardwin I did not mean to delete all that info on Models of migration to the New World. I was just trying to removing a sentence or two.. Tks for noticing :) I was making a chart at the same time and opps Buzzzsherman (talk) 02:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Thought it was tooooo much of a slice. Best wishes. WBardwin (talk) 02:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Random comment

For some reason I feel the need to inform you that I personally find all caps to be absolutely disgusting and unreadable–even worse than the sinful behavior of using the phrase click here. Not that you would ever actually leave such a thing on any articles. ...but what do you think? ~B F^izz _(talk) 03:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is a form of yelling and calling attention to oneself. Kind of obnoxious, and besides, educational psychologists tell us it is very hard to read. I hope you are aware that I didn't leave this on the file. The edit was left on 01:23, 4 September 2009 by anon user 66.7.168.196. But I was in mindless revert mode on anon edits and inadvertently hit the button. Best wishes. WBardwin (talk) 05:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

About new accounts

Hi, Im wondering when my account can be opened for semi-protect pages? Can you direct me to an admin that you know that I can ask? Thanks. Harut8 (talk) 03:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Our administrators are a large and varied tribe, see Wikipedia:Administrators for a list. Almost all admins are approachable and will answer questions, but their schedules vary dramatically. You might see a response almost immediately or have to wait a bit. My most recent admin needs were met by User:Prodego and User:Good Olfactory, and I have a long standing helpful relationship with User:Bishonen. Hope that helps. WBardwin (talk) 03:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I've responded to this user's request at his talk page. Thanks, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Neoslavery

You seem like a reasonable person--at least you have treated me with some civility, or anyway have not (yet) insulted me. And so, I will prevail on you to help me edit the section on Neoslavery so that it meets Wikipedia's requirements. But a section on Neoslavery needs to be in the Slavery article. Neoslavery was not merely an aspect of Jim Crow; in its many forms (the convict lease, debt slavery (peonage), straightforward enslavement), it was of a piece with antebellum slavery. Furthermore, there is a clear consensus among modern-day historians that the enslavement of African Americans did not end with the Thirteenth Amendment, but rather continued at least until World War II. See, e.g., the notes and bibliography to Douglas Blackmon's Pulitzer-winning Slavery by Another Name.68.81.70.80 (talk) 05:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, welcome to Wikipedia. Yes, I did notice your material, scanned it briefly, and formed a basic idea of what you are trying to do. Before I express a personal opinion on the topic, I would like to read some of your references (which sound like they could be important). I believe I was introduced to one of the earlier studies many years ago as a undergraduate. Then I would feel comfortable editing the material you have tried to place in the article. In addition to the Slavery in the United States article, there are many others that might benefit from the material that you are presenting, including Jim Crow laws, 19th century history, and articles dealing with the Civil Rights movement. Placing a summary of their positions in articles on the historians/authors could also be useful.

Please forgive me for being frank, but you probably started off on the wrong foot as a serious new editor. First of all, you accused the article's editors of being judgmental because you edit under an IP number. I'm afraid your criticism has some validity. Regular editors spend so much time reverting vandals or people pushing their personal point of view, that IP numbers raise an alert. But starting off by attacking editors, and their good faith efforts, is not really a good idea. You even suggested above that I might insult you in the future. So, if possible, you might consider signing in and becoming an registered editor. As you see here, it gives you a talk page to discuss issues and a user page to list your interests, perspective and concerns about Wikipedia. It also allows you to create user pages (see my messy User:WBardwin/cheatsheet which I use to store interesting formatting and visual references for future use) for drafting articles, creating lists, tables and reference materials. They become your personal files. This would allow you to take material on your topic and edit it, all the while discussing placement and content with long term editors on various pages. This works particularly well on issues which are controversial, are a minority opinion, or just plain new to the editors working here. It's also great when planning to create a brand new article -- which you cannot do as an IP user. This could be important to you as your several paragraphs strike me, at first glance, as the basis for a potential new article.

But working relationships aside, editing here can be fairly simple and without significant conflict. I've been around several years and can count the incidents that really angered me on one hand. During that time, I've come up with a few practices I try and follow. So forgive me if I sound like I'm preaching. I generally suggest that new editors: "read the article before doing anything and then reread any relevant material at hand. Edit/tweek/reformat current information and only then add new material. Discuss new sections and potential controversies on the talk page, and be patient with people's schedules and attitudes. Work in relatively small blocks on articles where there are other active editors. Encourage new editors by retaining as much of their material as possible. Accomodate other opinions, however diverse from your own. Keep the amount of detail manageable -- length of individual articles is sometimes a individual editor and computer system concern. Major assertions, additions, opinions or rewrites should be accompanied by sources, usually more than one for each major assertion. List the references in a reference section. And use detailed, with page number, formal footnotes -- there are varied note styles in use here, so look around and take your pick." I also encourage new editors to seek out a friendly administrator to answer questions and help out with misunderstandings. And finally, we all have to try not to get defensive when others start editing, tweeking, and deleting "our" material. Sometimes giving up "ownership" of the written word is the hardest part.

So, if I were you, I would "look" around the system to find the perfect article for your material as it stands. Then take the time to tailor the material to suit the Slavery article and think about creating a stand alone article on the topic. If you can't register, for whatever reason, I'd be happy to set up a temporary blank user page where you can work. In the meantime, I'll add your references to my library list! My, this reply got long.......... Best wishes. WBardwin (talk) 06:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Possible placement for material: Freedmen and the enactment of Black Codes in Reconstruction era of the United States. See articles in Category:History of African-American civil rights as well.

Notes for library research: Slavery by Another Name -recent Pulitzer Prize-winning book by Douglas Blackmon. Pete Daniel--a historian at the Smithsonian--The shadow of slavery: peonage in the South, 1901-1969. Additional historians: Leon Litwack, Trouble in Mind: Black Southerners in the Age of Jim Crow; Mary Ellen Curtin: Black Prisoners and Their World, Alabama, 1865-1900; Greta de Jong, A Different Day: African American Struggles for Justice in Rural Louisiana, 1900-1970.

Thanks. I'm not actually a new editor. It's just that my IP address changed recently, for whatever reason. And, for whatever reason, I'm not inclined to join Wikipedia.

Also, if I got defensive, it's because I truly am sick of (a) the prejudice against so-called "anonymous" users (Wikipedia could easily force all editors to join--but until it does, treating "IPs" as second-class contributors (or worse, presumptive vandals) is, to my mind, neither fair nor acceptable, especially when it takes only minor effort to actually read what someone wrote instead of just summarily deleting it) and (b) kneejerk deletions (I don't agree with you that the folks who deleted my additions were acting in good faith--one of them did so exactly one minute after I had posted them, and the others provided only conclusory allegations of "soapboxing" and "vandalism" to justify their actions).

As much as I appreciate your advice and basic decency, I'm afraid that the administrators whom you defend would do as well I would to heed the former. They would also do well not to go around accusing others of posting "fringe . . . history" and "rhetorical flourish[es]" and "vandalism," especially when they are not familiar with the subject in question. (I thank you for your circumspection in this regard.) I'll add that I "attacked" no one until such charges were flung at me.

Anyway, look me up if you do read Blackmon's book or any of the others'. I'd be happy to work with you on a section or article. I'm thoroughly disinclined, however, after this experience, to spend more time and energy on my own drafting contributions that are subject to summary--i.e., bad-faith--deletion. The information in Blackmon's book absolutely needs to be on Wikipedia, but frankly, I don't think I'm the one to put it there--at least not on my own.

Thanks again. 68.81.70.80 (talk) 08:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Reversion on Ancient Pueblo Peoples

Hi, why did you revert this edit? --90.211.2.185 (talk) 17:45, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Overall, I really have no objection to the redirect notice. But the two subject matters are so conceptually different that I would expect the average user to go to X-files first, then look for the individual episode. And.....the writers' use of word Anasazi in the series is so "historically" and "culturally" inaccurate that my teeth grate just a little. I would have no objection to your replacing the notice, but would suggest that we copy this discussion to the talk page for the reference of future editors. Best wishes. WBardwin (talk) 22:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Let’s see....religion, politics and money. What else can we fight about?

You forgot sex. Sex, politics and religion are the troika that are prohibited subjects of conversation in Chicago bars. Which is why Chicago bars are so quiet (unless everybody is drunk and forgets the rules)

As far as Seth Kinman as a mountain man - not perfect to be sure, but it's the best picture the article has. Your decision is fine with me. All the best, Smallbones (talk) 03:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Reversions

I don't appreciate simple reversions which you have performed on 2 articles to my recent contributions. You need to take your recent edits to the talk pages and not place the onus on other editors in all cases. I have had this situation too often with editors with vested interests in Mormon topics. --Fremte (talk) 19:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

And I don't appreciate, in general, the wholesale edits to LDS articles you have been making without appropriate discussion. When I have the time, I (and others, I'm sure) will go over those edits in more detail. As for these two minor reversions, note that they are only partial and deal with one issue. I did not agree with the material's removal -- that is what a reversion is. The Mormon Christianity issue is a primary reason for regular vandalism and has led to many reversions on this basic church page. The topic has been discussed a myriad of times on talk pages, archived, and talked about again. The LDS Church belongs in the Christian Restorationist category and the term "Christian", in some context, belongs in the lead. Yes, some Christian groups, behaving in an unChristian-like manner, dispute the label but their contention is the issue that belongs later in the main article. And don't stereotype "editors with vested interests", please. That simply shows where your vested interests lie. WBardwin (talk) 21:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Syphilis page-- your reversions

Just a note on your reversions to my edits on the Syphilis page-- there is actually some stuff on the talk page, and everyone agrees with my point of view, no-one disagrees. I only noticed this after I made the changes. I don't have a subscription to that journal so I can't see the article but I have emailed the author to ask for the PDF. Even if it does say that, the fact that syphilis was not known and recognized as a specific disease before Columbus (regardless of any theories as to its origin) means that Ibn Sina's document could not have referred to syphilis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danpovey (talk • contribs) 00:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Fajada Butte

Yes, much better--excellent, in fact, and you also removed some weasel words. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 15:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

doubts vs. alternative opinions

What's your reasoning on the change? "Doubts" is undeniably correct, in that every "alternative opinion" expresses doubt about Shakespeare's authorship, and seems more concise to me. Tom Reedy (talk) 00:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Just a modest difference -- "doubt" of the author's identity is, in my opinion, slightly pov as it says "I (wikipedia) doubt" that the author was William Shakespeare. "Alternate opinions" implies the article, and common opinion, generally recognize that Shakespeare is the author, but that other opinions exist. As for more "concise", one extra word doesn't really matter, does it? WBardwin (talk) 23:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

deletion

See my talkpage, thanks for your help !! I still don't understand where I made a mistake. I guess that's a keyboard-mousse mistake. Thanks again ! --Yug (talk) 07:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

You are most welcome. WBardwin (talk) 21:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Jack Mormon

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Jack Mormon. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Mormon. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)