User talk:Awilley/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions with Awilley. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 > |
| All Pages: | 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 - ... (up to 100) |
Welcome
|
- ☑ Welcome myself to Wikipedia, check! This stuff would have been good to know when I was starting out. Adjwilley (talk) 21:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
July 2011
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.
In particular, the three-revert rule states that:
- Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. M3I5K7E 00:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you. I appreciate the concern. We were using the talk page every step of the way, and I am attempting to find something that will suit all parties. Also, for the record, I was the one who didn't violate 3RR. -- Adjwilley (talk) 14:48, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Reply to Talk
I slightly changed the vote thing. I have a feeling that the version you've been proposing to add will be the clear victor here; I suppose a part of my hesitation to add it is that it feels like a reward to Canadiandy who kept asking all those nitpicky questions before. I did propose a slight change, but I feel most people probably will go for the more streamlined version that you've been focused on adding. -- Avanu (talk) 19:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- It is true that Canadiandy tried a number of different angles to get rid of the "nontrinitarian," and I wouldn't want people to think that I was acting on his behalf. I would guess that he has mixed feelings about the revision as well. . . I'll admit that during the height of our edit "skirmish" I was secretly hoping he (or someone else) would weigh in, but he's been pretty silent on the issue recently. I would expect him to be happy about the "nontrinitarian" going, but not thrilled about "Christianity." I will say one thing though: in the preceding discussions, I found myself agreeing with you much more often then Andy. -- Adjwilley (talk) 20:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
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 Nettrom (talk), 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 (talk) 21:22, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
My talk page
Now why did you blank it? Argentium (talk) 00:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- I had left you a message on your talk page earlier regarding an edit on the Joseph Smith page. I didn't know if you were checking your talk page, and the message wasn't relevant any more, so I deleted the message. Since I was the only person to have written on your talk page, when I deleted my message, I was deleting everything on your talk page, which is why it says that I blanked it. Feel free to revert it if you want. So sorry if I caused you any worry. -- Adjwilley (talk) 01:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
WKIW -- "When Knowledge Isn’t Written, Does It Still Count?
Thanks for taking a lead in taking note of "When Knowledge Isn’t Written, Does It Still Count?". I think this is important for WP, and/but i am toying with en.WikiOR. I haven't figured out where such notions will be discussed, but I'm going to comment on the Signpost -- Briefly item.
--Jerzy•t 19:17, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
By the way...
Just happened to see your note for COgden, and my personal opinion is that option 3 is probably the most productive, option 1 is easy and probably what will end up happening, and option 2 is probably a bad idea for the reasons you mention in it. Also, I hope I've not been too polarizing or problematic in various discussions (per the 4th bullet point). I've never really had any interest in editing the JS page, so no worries there. I do have a personal point of view, but I generally try to lean toward a non-biased outcome. Best of luck in the coming week. -- Avanu (talk) 01:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for the comment. I really do value your point of view, and though you had crossed my mind when I was writing that footnote, I wasn't really referring to you. (By the way, I have appreciated your efforts in achieving a non-biased outcome.) I will probably end up deleting that footnote, as it doesn't really serve a purpose, and isn't very diplomatic. -- Adjwilley (talk) 04:01, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
I didn't have a problem with it at all. You're good for it!--Canadiandy talk 15:20, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- Avanu, it looks like you were right about #1 happening. . . I am attempting a #2, now that Foxe is back, and would appreciate any input you care to give. -- Adjwilley (talk) 21:24, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Civility Barnstar |
| For taking the most fair-minded approach at a sensitive article. Oh yeah, the liquid in the mug is hot chocolate. Canadiandy talk 05:48, 26 August 2011 (UTC) |
Homosexuality and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
A automated "anti-vandal" bot named XLinkBot (talk · contribs) has recently attempted to revert a big chunk of the ref & misc fixes I've been doing on Homosexuality and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Could you help me keep an eye on that article to make sure that doesn't happen again? -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 16:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- I have it on my watchlist, and I'll keep an eye out for the bot. I looked up the bot, and it looks like it had a problem with one link that you added (http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/disciples2/) that had been flagged by the bot's admins for some reason unknown to me. I also found out that if the bot finds a link, it tries to revert all the contributions of the user who added the link, so as to not leave broken links if the user tried to repair the link after adding it )but before the bot reverts). -- Adjwilley (talk) 16:32, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- Looks like the Bot didn't like the link because it was part of a social networking type site (yahoo groups). (See WP:LINKSTOAVOID which mentions that specifically.) It looks like another user (presumably related to the bot) came in and removed the yahoo link manually. -- Adjwilley (talk) 17:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of \sandbox5
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. GILO A&E⇑ 17:16, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I have moved your pages to User:Adjwilley/Sandbox5 and User:Adjwilley/Personal notes as they both appeared to be attempts to create user pages. Regards, GILO A&E⇑ 17:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, they need "User:Adjwilley/" in front if they are going to be in your user space. If you are starting a draft article, you can find another way to do it at Help:Userspace draft. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 17:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Adjwilley
No, that wasn't intentional. Maybe it was the cumulative pixel lengths.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 23:50, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
- user:COGDEN, and then user:Redthoreau, had expertly shuffled the pix' irregularly shaped rectangles (none having perfect golden ratios between their half-sidelength and their bottom/topwidth; and again, between these bottom/top-width and their fullsides-length, of course: such as is a standard piece of typing paper)--> link. So I shunn't o' mess'd 'ith it.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 00:11, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Second Kudos
Wow, Adjwilley. You nailed the lead. I am 110% fine with the existence of critical info in the article. Contrary to the critical accusations aimed towards me I don't want this to read like a Church press release. But when you ask most people who Joseph Smith was, those that know of him are far more likely to say he was a religious leader, wrote the Book of Mormon, started a church, or something of that nature than that he was a mayor or a theocrat or a military leader. This is the kind of fairness (not special treatment) I have been hoping for all along. As the article already addresses the issues of plural marriage, financial crises, early family poverty, his being armed at Carthage, gold digging, (and on and on) will it hurt terribly if there is a little focus on what he accomplished even if it happens to be generally positive? In reality, if the movement that followed him had died out the article would be more of a footnote and so it should be remembered that it is what he accomplished and his religious influence that are key elements to who Joseph Smith was as a historical figure. And if Joseph Smith is remembered frequently as a polygamist or criminal or traitor... it is likely because of the religious attacks aimed at discrediting his religion. Modern historians I would expect to throw out both the polemic and apologist rhetoric and look more closely at the bigger picture (not merely the inflammatory or glorifying minutia) with an aim at identifying not just who he was, but what he did, and what impact that had on how the world is today.
There's a lot of us swinging at the leaves, but you seem to be hacking at the root of the problem. Wicked smart!--Canadiandy talk 05:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Brilliant Idea Barnstar |
| For imagining a whole new approach to the lead at the Joseph Smith article which will be more engaging for the reader, hits the main points succinctly and effectively, and which is both fair and neutral in tone and style. Canadiandy talk 05:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC) |
Thank you for your kind thoughts. I told my wife that I got a barnstar and she laughed at my nerdiness and called me a hick. Anyway, it's a nice thing to feel appreciated. I'm not sure the paragraph's tone and style is quite there yet, but I expect it will get some polishing and revision from other editors. -- Adjwilley (talk) 16:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
A cookie for you!
|
I appreciate your ability to disagree without being disagreeable. John Foxe (talk) 14:26, 5 October 2011 (UTC) |
I forgot to thank you for the cookie. Thanks, I also appreciate the increased civility you've shown recently. ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:55, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the respectful input!
Adjwilley, your courteous honesty is very appreciated. I chalk up my lack of reliable sources and undeveloped sense of WP philosophy to my newness here at WP. I don't apologize for my passion. I wish I could get through to people that my POV starts with the question, "If I saw this at another religious figure's page would I find it fair?" Then I let that guide my discussion. The big problem is that others are not comfortable with this kind of discussion coming from a church member. And I get that. That is why I am slowly removing myself from the LDS articles. Knowing that there are some new editors who seem to get that makes it easier to broaden my horizons. Thanks for your fairness.--Canadiandy talk 02:01, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Joseph Smith
Thank you for your constructive edits to the article on Joseph Smith. On another note, do you think it would be worth inserting that Joseph Smith was immediately succeeded by the 12 not by Brigham Young per se, or is that best left to other articles?John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:24, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
- My pleasure. I'm not an expert on the Succession crisis, but I think that Brigham Young's argument was that Smith was succeeded by the 12 (of which he was the senior member). My opinion is the current paragraphs are unclear, wordy, and bloated, and that they should be trimmed down considerably. (My reason for this is that the Joseph Smith biographies I've read hardly dwell on the succession crisis at all. They pretty much stop with Smith's death.) I plan on working on that section some day, but I may not get to it for a while. If I had to write a quick paragraph on the spot, I would probably say something like, "Smith had not clarified who his successor would be. His brother Hyrum would have had the strongest claim, but he died in Carthage with Smith. Brigham Young, the senior member of the 12 apostles assumed leadership over the majority of the Saints, and smaller factions followed Sidney Rigdon, James Strang, and others to form other denominations of the Latter Day Saint movement." Then I'd have a paragraph on the major denominations. -- Adjwilley (talk) 15:16, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
- Don't forget the (ultimate) signifiacne of Joseph Smith III, considering his Pops set the young kid apart on at least four occasions. :) A Sniper (talk) 06:16, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Category talk:Anti-abortion violence#RFC on supercategory was reopened after a review at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive228#RFC close review: Category:Anti-abortion violence.
I am notifying all editors who participated in these two discussions or Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 26#"Christian terrorism" supercategory at Cat:Anti-abortion violence. to ensure all editors are aware of the reopened discussion. Cunard (talk) 03:56, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
On a personal note...
Dude, this edit was not cool. If you are going to (rightly) admonish Foxe to wait for consensus then you should too. This is something other editors could seize upon and use to your disadvantage. Padillah (talk) 15:43, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- My apologies. That edit was intended as a step towards compromise, whereas Foxe's edit was a step away from compromise. -- Adjwilley (talk) 15:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- And I appreciate the effort. Remember, each person can only really see their point of view and, while you saw Foxe's edit as moving away from compromise, he may view your edit the same way. That's why we have the talk pages. BTW nice way to integrate the Cowdery accusations into the body of the article. I like that so far. Padillah (talk) 15:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- I should have used the talk page first. The idea was to make the two edits, then post on the talk page, suggesting that they could be a compromise. If the compromise was rejected, I could then self-revert. I've found it's sometimes easier to discuss something if there's something solid (like a diff) to talk about. -- Adjwilley (talk) 16:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- And I appreciate the effort. Remember, each person can only really see their point of view and, while you saw Foxe's edit as moving away from compromise, he may view your edit the same way. That's why we have the talk pages. BTW nice way to integrate the Cowdery accusations into the body of the article. I like that so far. Padillah (talk) 15:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Adjwilley, I want to come to your defense here. If Padillah is going to come to the defense of Foxe, then it's only fair that someone speaks up for you. I don't have issues with Padillah anymore. He does seem to come down on the negative side of Smith but he also seems willing to listen to reason. But the context here is that Foxe has been involved in edit warring in the past and even been blocked more than once. I have seen nothing of the sort coming from you. I don't agree with half of what you say, but then neither does Foxe. From my read that suggests you are approaching the article in a fair manner and have earned the right of making some bold changes. I am amazed at the incredible amount of input, time, and research you have devoted here, and all without a polemic or critical bent. You have earned the right, says I, to edit first and then let the discussion follow.--Canadiandy talk 07:56, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- Canadiandy, Thank you for your note here. I don't see Padillah as coming to John Foxe's defense. I see him as arguing for what he understands to be the case. For instance, he was uncomfortable with calling Fanny Alger polygamy because for the past couple of years the article had been calling it a "filthy affair". But as you noted, Padillah is willing to listen to reason, and when confronted with a logical argument, he is willing to change his mind. When he realized that all the sources call it polygamy, he immediately adjusted his position. (In American politics, that would be suicide. On Wikipedia, that's something I value highly.)
- Also, I am not particularly concerned with edit warring. For the time, John Foxe has lost that ability, and I'm trying to hold myself to a voluntary 1RR as well. I'd also like to avoid anything that resembles having sides or teams, as that seems only to create divisions and hard feelings.
- As for my posting long arguments on the talk page before making edits...I guess that's just my modus operandi. Part of me wants to just dive in and start editing, but at the same time, I feel a need to justify everything I do on an article that is so heavily watched and edited. Besides, I often get new ideas as I am trying to logically write my overly-long talk-page posts. It used to annoy me when I'd spend hours writing a long proposition and then nobody would comment, but I'm kind of getting used to tacit apathy, ambivalence, or agreement, and vocal opposition. I've also appreciated the little notes I get here, because it lets me know that people are noticing. I think for now I'll continue spamming the talk page until somebody complains :-) – Adjwilley (talk) 17:37, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Congrats
|
The Editor's Barnstar | |
| For soundness and skill in making articles more balanced and more engaging. Keep up the good work! —Eustress talk 04:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC) |
Thank you! – Adjwilley (talk) 16:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
You are fair!
I read at another user talk page you questioned your own fairness (re: extreme editors). Please know that you are fair! You are the very reason I have been able to drop out of the discussions at Joseph Smith. Not because I agree with half what you write, but because I know you will not be swayed by any of the extreme editors. Truth and fairness seems to guide you, and that is the best anyone could expect. Thank you for agreeing with Foxe when he is right, but also having the courage to put him in his place when he is wrong. We can't lose you at Joseph Smith or the whole article will fall back into bickering and edit warring. While I am a strong respecter of Joseph Smith, all I ever wanted was to see him treated fairly, neutrally, and by unbiased editors. Foxe and I are both biased and you have disagreed with us both. That very fact seems to stand you in good stead.
You are the empire's (er the project's) last hope! --Canadiandy talk 06:34, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the star wars reference :-) I always enjoy your sense of humor Canadiandy. As weird as it may sound, I try to avoid arguing in the name of Truth and Fairness. Though I value both those qualities, Verifiablility is the banner I've chosen, even though my browser's spell checker doesn't recognize it as a word. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:51, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
- I just hope you can stick it out. It seems Foxe's Jedi mind tricks do not work on you. Apologies to Foxe in advance.--Canadiandy talk 00:48, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
RE Comment
Thanks for that. No, I was not referring to you. I was trying to illustrate to Foxe that he is as extreme in his intent as the apologists he so bases his counterstrikes against. I have had the unique position of watching from a middle position - my only stake in any of this is as a direct descendant of JSJr. I want him portrayed as a superhuman saint no more than as a diabolical cult leader; merely to describe him as a dynamic, intersting person from American history. There should be warts & all, if the secondary sources warrant it. But instead we have the constant battles between those who seek to prove one way or the other that he was either the sanitized way Deseret Books have portrayed him or the lying false prophet shouted by the Born Again crowd. Keep up the good fight! Best, A Sniper (talk) 06:46, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
- The Emma section was written over several months, with back & forths including me, Foxe, StormRider, COgden, and others. It took give & take on several points, involving other parts of the article, to get balance. I started watching the section like a hawk once we'd (finally) got through the hassle. However, I will take a look at it again over the weekend and see if anything can be trimmed. Best, A Sniper (talk) 02:55, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks again - yes, I was half asleep and trying to diminish the errors in the transition space between the Emma section and the notes. Looks better now - cheers. I also hacked down one reference into the footnotes. Again, that section was a compromise with the 'anti' crowd...and to a lesser extent with a couple of LDS editors...as we were nitpicking over general issues throughout the article and I was making sure that Emma's commitment to her stance would be obvious and well documented. Best, A Sniper (talk) 05:08, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
High and mighty
Did you personally revert my edits? As well, can anybody revert and edit? I find it slightly insulting and un warranted that someone can delete another users edits at will. You said you are a direct descendant of Joseph Smith? Good lord no wonder you delete edits about your dear relative, let people have thier opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Activist169 (talk • contribs) 23:51, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
- I did not personally revert your edits. Others did, and it's currently causing somewhat of a mess. I'm not a descendant of Joseph Smith, though I do enjoy editing his article. I apologize if I caused you any confusion or grief. Anybody can edit Wikipedia, but non-constructive edits are usually reverted quickly. Also, if you type 4 tildes (~~~~) after leaving a message on somebody's talk page, it leaves a signature and timestamp. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:55, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
- Activist: I don't normally encroach on someone else's talk page...but opinions are exactly what should not be included on Wikipedia articles, unless they come from a professional source and are documented. After quickly perusing the Joseph Smith article, there has been a lot of chatter on the talk page for Joseph Smith. If you are looking to add content, start there and propose your opinions/changes in a setting where they can be discussed so that a consensus can be reached. Please feel free to engage in conversation with me as a third party if you have any issues. I haven't had any interaction with the article on Joseph Smith and would be happy to explain some of the policies and guidelines Wikipedia has in place. --Tymun (Contact Me - Contribs) 00:01, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you, Tymun, for commenting here. When I started out on Wikipedia several months ago I ended up having a lot of my edits reverted. In the moment I was mad and thought I was right. In hindsight, I wish I would have had someone offer to explain the policies to me. ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:09, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
- Activist: I don't normally encroach on someone else's talk page...but opinions are exactly what should not be included on Wikipedia articles, unless they come from a professional source and are documented. After quickly perusing the Joseph Smith article, there has been a lot of chatter on the talk page for Joseph Smith. If you are looking to add content, start there and propose your opinions/changes in a setting where they can be discussed so that a consensus can be reached. Please feel free to engage in conversation with me as a third party if you have any issues. I haven't had any interaction with the article on Joseph Smith and would be happy to explain some of the policies and guidelines Wikipedia has in place. --Tymun (Contact Me - Contribs) 00:01, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Technical correction suggestion
Hi Adjwilley,
A technical recommendation. The lead reads:
"Joseph Smith, Jr. (December 23, 1805 – June 27, 1844) was an American religious leader and the founder of the Latter Day Saint movement, which gave rise to Mormon theology. Smith is regarded by his followers as a prophet."
Technically, Latter-day Saints (and others of the movement) usually do not see themselves as followers of Joseph Smith anymore. His authority has been passed on. They follow his teachings, but it is better said that they follow Jesus Christ through the direction of his modern prophet. Yeah I know this is POV, but a neutral correction might be to simply word it;
Joseph Smith, Jr. (December 23, 1805 – June 27, 1844) was an American religious leader and the founder of the Latter Day Saint movement, which gave rise to Mormon theology. Smith is regarded by these followers as a prophet.
or
Joseph Smith, Jr. (December 23, 1805 – June 27, 1844) was an American religious leader and the founder of the Latter Day Saint movement, which gave rise to Mormon theology. Smith is regarded by the followers of his teachings a prophet.
24.69.202.209 (talk) 06:58, 29 December 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy
- Thank you for your suggestion. I always appreciate a second set of eyes. I have to say that I'm not very happy with the first "paragraph" myself, and our current version is partially the result of a lengthy discussion that took place a couple months ago. The discussion is archived here and I'd recommend giving it a quick read-through. I personally am terrified of opening paragraphs, and I prefer to let others write them. They're supposed to contain the most important facts that everybody should know...but how does one decide what those are? WP:LEAD has some guidelines that might help, and a reading of Bushman's preface might also give you some guidance on the wording. I do plan on getting back to the Lead at some point, but I'm trying to work through the rest of the article first, and things are going rather slow there. Might I suggest that you give it a try yourself? After all, this is supposed to be the encyclopedia that anyone can edit :-) If I had to take a stab at it this very minute, I might write something like:
- Joseph Smith, Jr (December 23, 1805 – June 27, 1844) was an American religious leader and founder of Mormonism, the predominant religious tradition of the Latter Day Saint movement. By age twenty-four Smith had published the Book of Mormon, and in the next fourteen years he gathered thousands of followers, founded cities, built temples, and created a religious culture that survived his death.
- Obviously you'd probably have to tweak this quite a bit, but I've found that if you stick closely to saying what so-called "reliable sources" say, you're pretty safe. ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- I don't see why a big tweak is needed. It is only a one word change to denote that modern-day individuals follow his teachings but not him. While we may believe Joseph Smith was a saint (member of the Church) I know of no group in the LDS movements that participate in saint worshiping. LDS followed Joseph Smith (past tense) as a leader, but now he is mortally deceased we only follow his teachings (present tense) today. To change from "his followers" to "these followers" seems a simple fix to the present tense problem.
- Of course, I must admit being unfamiliar with the source or origin for the current phrasing I may be missing something, so I'll leave this one to your fair care.
- As to editing myself, I tried that in the past but saw my input both slowing down the process and lending some sort of credibility to John Foxe (i.e. he was justified as counterbalancing so-called pro-LDS editors such as myself). I'd rather see the neutralists take this one on than return to the conflict of the past and give John Foxe any more credibility.
- Assuming the world survives into 2012 (apologies to the apocalyptic crowd) Have a great New Year.
--Canadiandy talk 22:58, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
- My apologies. I didn't realize it was you. I thought you were a new IP user, and I was thinking it would be a good experience for a new user to make an edit himself. I understand your reasoning for dropping out at Joseph Smith, and I respect that. The best of luck to you, and a happy new year to you as well. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:46, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Joseph Smith, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page General conference (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Your edits at JSJr
Simply amazing, thoughtful work. I am an admirer and hope to have more time later in the Winter semester to jump right in there. In the meantime, don't let up - your work is moving things towards true NPOV! Cheers, A Sniper (talk) 06:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for noticing. That Boggs paragraph was a nasty one. The first time I read it, I thought that Boggs had died and the general consensus was that Rockwell had shot him. I actually believed that for several months, and remember being very surprised when I learned that Boggs survived and Rockwell was innocent. (Rockwell's defense, by the way, was something along the lines of, If I had shot him, he'd be dead. :-)
- Anyway, I appreciate the encouragement. I enjoy the editing, but I am not a fan of the constant conflict there seems to be at the JSJr article. Sometimes it really gets to me, and yesterday was one of those times. Thank you for your note here. It makes me happy when people of different backgrounds and ideologies can come together and agree on something, and my crazy pipe dream is that someday that can happen in the JSJr community. And I'm not talking about the whole prophet/scoundrel business. He was an important and influential character in American religious history, and a great man, despite his faults. That's something I think everybody can agree on if they believe the sources. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:08, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- +1 what Sniper said. I like your point about the Boggs paragraph. When I first read the article I was shocked by the way the facts in the article had been construed (albeit verified by acceptable sourcing) to leave the reader thinking something completely different than what the common historians suggest is the reality. That is why I got involved. I figured if someone with only 5 years of university training can figure it out, then it would be helpful for the article to have me step in. It seemed so wrong, even I couldn't mess it up. I never realized what a mess a few grumpy, unemployed PhD recipients could cause at Wikipedia (humor implied, I really don't know if anyone here has a PhD). And if there is an expertise, from my perspective, it is in research, not rhetoric. I have several sources from yesterday's news, none of which deny that the American President purchased a new aircraft carrier from his winnings in a Nevada casino. Not one single source denies it. Hold your ground, Adjwilley. I only agree with half of what you say, but at least I can agree with the other half.--Canadiandy talk 02:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
I have put the review of Mormons on hold for an initial seven days to allow time to respond to a number of queries I have raised. At the moment it's mostly just queries, and I think that with a bit of tidying up here and there the article will pass; though sometimes it happens that a closer focus or a reread will reveal gaps in coverage, an inappropriate focus, a copyvio, or an unbalanced POV, so nothing is certain! I hope that won't happen here. I have the review watchlisted, but you may find a note on my talkpage will get a quicker response if you have a query. SilkTork ✔Tea time 18:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks! I'll get to work on responding and fixing problems as they come up. ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 | This user helped promote Mormons to good article status. |
Well done. SilkTork ✔Tea time 15:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Bilbobag
Adjwilley. Not related to hobbit. Also please note I've posted our respective comments about the "Mormons" page with the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Bilbobag (talk) 20:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Three Witnesses
Sorry for the delayed response; I was out of town for several days with no Internet access. Actually, I didn't read the diff backward — none of the changed citations in my edit were missing anything. If you look at the citations I didn't modify, you'll see full citations given for Bushman and Palmer: as long as a full citation is present at least one time in the article, full citations can be provided for all of them. Some of BOMC's new citations, however, neither had all necessary information nor were additional references to works that were fully cited elsewhere in the article in the way that Bushman and Palmer were. Nyttend (talk) 23:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Good Article Barnstar | |
| Thanks Adjwilley for helping to promote Mormons to Good Article status. Please accept this little sign of appreciation and goodwill from me, because you deserve it. Keep it up, and give someone a pat on the back today. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 09:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC) |
Seer Stones - LDS
I have done some excellent work in clarifying the issues on the Seer Stone (LDS) page. I improved my changes and cited Quin as requested by Foxe. I then re-posted and Foxe has again reverted to the old content, making broad complaints about references. I have made what I consider a reasonable response to Foxe on the Seer Stone-LDS talk page. Please keep an eye on that page and see if John Foxe will either provide helpful feedback or leave my edits in place. Thanks. - SunKider (talk) 06:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- SunKider, Thanks for the note here. I appreciate the work you've been doing, as well as your willingness to discuss disagreements rationally. I also understand the frustration you must feel at having your work repeatedly reverted. I recently came out of a long dispute with John Foxe, and for personal reasons I'm trying not to get involved in another. I'm not sure exactly what his problem is with your additions, but I think it's more than just the source problems he's mentioned on the talk page.
- If I were you I would take his advice and try making your additions bit by bit. Instead of adding two new sections, add one. Make sure you're not saying or implying anything that Quinn didn't say himself (in other words, don't use somebody's quote that's reproduced in Quinn's book to imply something Quinn didn't say). Also, I'd suggest that you avoid deleting any sourced information. Wikipedia's supposed to represent not just one point of view, but all the major ones. Chances are you can clarify that the seer stone and the U&T were different things without removing any material. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- The IP editor left footnote material in the text and otherwise messed up the format. I'm confident you can straighten it out.--John Foxe (talk) 21:14, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- Adjwilley, can you suggest an administrator that I can appeal to? Or can you point me to the next step in escalating conflict resolution. I'm tired of receiving the run-around from mr. foxe. - SunKider (talk) 20:05, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
- SunKider, I think a good first step would be to define precisely what the conflict is. I realize John Foxe has been annoyingly vague in his responses on the talk page, and for some reason hasn't responded directly to your arguments. In my opinion, the best path forward would be for you to write a paragraph with a couple ciations and insert it into the article. I'd be happy to help you with the formatting of the citations and prose. If John Foxe has problems with it, he can tweak it, but if he reverts without giving a good reason, then perhaps we can look for some sort of dispute resolution. In my experience, it's a lot easier to for a third party to understand what's going on if it's just a simple change in the article (like adding a paragraph) than when whole sections are being created, moved, with paragraphs being deleted. Does that sound reasonable to you? ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:36, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Newsletter
Hello! I want to apologize for any inconvenience you experienced in receiving the newsletter. You received it because you are a member of a Christianity wikiproject, LDS perhaps? I am going to personally unsubscribe you so this will not happen again. Thanks for your patience. – Lionel (talk) 22:32, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
- No problem at all. I am a member of the LDS wikiproject, so the newsletter wasn't a surprise. It's just that I got this particular one three times ([1], [2], [3]) and it was getting a bit annoying. Don't worry about unsubscribing me, I did it myself today. At least I think I did. I appreciate the follow up. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi, as now thirded SJSilverman's suggestion, your second, intend to implement. Ciao. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:42, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
IP user
I just wanted to thank you for the kind way you handled the editor with only an IP address. I was bothered by him/her appearing to tell me when and what to comment on and my response was not a personal attack on him/her. Thank you for recognizing that and pointing that out. I had suggested to this user that he/she create an account, but it was not received well. I will leave a note for this user apologizing if I offended him/her but wanted to thank you first for your handling of the situation. Thanks again. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 01:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. I kind of have a soft spot for new users. I also appreciate the way you handled the situation. I don't think the user was mad at you, as much as frustrated by the lack of response from all parties. ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:01, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Template:New Religious Movements, Cults, and Sects has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. As a contributor who was not notified of the discussion taking place this may concern you. Semitransgenic talk. 18:31, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you. I was not aware of that discussion. I'll leave a comment. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Seamus (dog)
Thank you for making updates to the Seamus article, particularly the section where the scientists evaluate the effect of the car trip on the dog. I noticed a few things in the Blair Soden reference that I had previously missed, and I made a few modifications to your changes. I added the name of the professor, Russell Cummings who said that the dog would be subject to 3 pounds (10 lbs per sq. ft.) of air pressure during the trip. I also noticed that the veterinarian is actually Cummings' wife, and not the wife of a different scientist, and so I changed that sentence. Debbie W. 11:50, 14 April 2012 (UTC) http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Politics/story?id=3329017&page=1
- Thanks. The 10 pounds per square foot (psf?) was a little weird. I skimmed the article pretty quickly and didn't realize it was his wife. Thanks for catching me on that. ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
It's a little bit confusing, but when I re-read the reference for the Diane Sawyer interview, it is Mitt who says that the Seamus attacks were the most wounding. Sawyer Interview Debbie W. 22:00, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
I noticed that you have made edits to the Seamus (dog) article. There is a survey to determine whether the Seamus article should be kept, renamed, merged, or deleted. Thank you. HHIAdm (talk) 16:52, 24 April 2012 (UTC) Talk:Seamus (dog)#Consolidated survey