Hello! I noticed you were on the list of members in the LDS WikiProject, and I was wondering if you were still interested in helping out there. You see, over the past few months, it appears that it has slowly drifted into inactivity. But you CAN help. Please consider doing both of the following:
Take ONE thing form the To-Do list and do it. Once you're done with it, remove it from the list, and from the<>{{Template:LDSprojectbox}}<>, so we know its done. Keep the page on your watchlist. We have a backlog going for more than half a year. Please help to work on it, and remove it.
Vote on the LDSCOTF, and work on it!
Tell your friends (esp. LDS friends, & esp. Wikipedian friends) about this WikiProject, and enocourage them to join (and be active).
Remember: your involvement in this WikiProject is just that - involvement! Please help us out.
(Note: I'm sending this out to everyone who's name was on the membership list, so I will NOT be watching this page for a response. If you want to contact me, do it on MY talk page, please.)
Thanks for all that you do -Trevdna 15:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
In response to your general notice: I am active in LDS articles -- although they are not my exclusive interest. You will find my ID on several recent postings including the LDS project page and the fortnight/quarterly/whatever project (that is a frustrating area). So, in general, count me in.
However, I take a little exception to your general opinion that things have slacked off. You may not be aware of how much work was done by a number of LDS project members on the successful effort to have the Early life of Joseph Smith, Jr. named as a featured article in December. In a real sense, that was our group project for about 6 weeks. COGDEN took a strong lead, but many LDS project members acted as copy editors and researchers. I suspect that any Wiki participation lag since Joseph's birthday has been due to the fact that our members have had to compensate, in their real lives, for the time they devoted to the featured article. Plus the holidays, of course. So -------- give them a few weeks and I expect to see their names again.
If I can be self-critical, however, I think that our LDS project here has an underlying problem or two. Wiki is by nature a libertarian style project -- with each person acting independently and boldly. Wiki tries to compensate for this inate lack of organization by seeking a form of concensus, electing administrators and organizing projects around common interests. However, LDS culture is highly structured in a heirarchy. I suspect the LDS membership here feels like a fish on a bicycle when it comes to doing things without any such structure. So, we leave little notes for one another and hope someone leads out. The group might be better off electing a leader or organizing a couple of committees or something. But, several people have tried to organize things more tightly, and then seemed to become discouraged. In addition, I think our real lives intrude when we try and place a time frame on a project (i.e. the fortnight/monthly/quarterly idea), as many of us are tightly scheduled with work, family and church responsibilties. I often feel I am stealing time from those things to work on Wiki -- even though it is great recreation for me.
So, after ranting about it, I commend you for your effort in trying to draw our attention to the state of the project. As we have a number of relatively new members, it would be wonderful to start a new dialog about how the project should run. I look forward to contributing as I can. Best wishes. WBardwin 01:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
By the way, I don't know if you've thought about this, but when you find yourself in an AOL block, the quickest thing you can do is probably to hop onto WP:IRC, where there is a ready pool of admins. Cheers. Dmcdevit·t 22:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi, On the page Junonia lemonias You've removed the image of the wet form of the species and not a duplicate image. There is a difference between the 2 shapes, the knowledge of which helps in identification in the field. For confirmation read the 1st para and look at the original images. I would request you to revert the page back to the previous version. If you are not able to then please do let me know. I will put it back. Ofcourse if you dont agree then please do put your comments other we wud end up in a loop of me putting it back and u removing it. Regards --Viren 06:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I restored the image as requested. To the non-butterfly person, the two photos are very similar but they do provide slightly different information. My original intent was simply the image placement. Tax boxes lead to difficulties with text, often hiding words or the end of sentences when images are close by. So, I moved the two images below the tax box. Hope that works for you. Best wishes. WBardwin 08:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Actually my reason for triming the pyrometric cone entry in cone was to try to keep each entry to a single line. The entries of a disamb page do not have to be precise definitions, they should only give readers enough information to identify the articles they really want. Would you agree that "gauge the temperature of a kiln" is accurate enough for that purpose? Otherwise I would have to trim something else.
That said: I have only a limited knowledge of the field (my wife did pottery for a couple of years — mostly with gas-fired kilns — and I used to ogle at her books and magazines). But I would say that "gauge the time spent at a given temperature" is no more correct than "gauge the temperature". Sure, it takes some time for the cone (as well as the pieces) to respond to changes in the ambient's temperature. However, beyond that 15-30 minutes delay, the elapsed time should have little effect on the cone's behavior. I.e., if a cone is rated at 2000°, it will not bend at 1950° even after many hours. Is that correct?
All the best, Jorge Stolfi 06:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
WBardwin/Archive 3 (Jan-June 2006), just wanted to let you know what I have proposed merging Mormon missionary with Mormon missionaries. I noticed you have contributed to these pages in the past, so please stop by one of the article's talk pages and leave your input on the merge. Thanks! --Hetar 07:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Why did you change the definition of pottery from ceramic vessels to ceramic objects? Please respond here. --Brunnock 12:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
although I've been much to busy in real life to join in, I have been monitoring the talk page and the ongoing discussion. I made the change to reflect some of the issues discussed and hopefully move toward concensus. Pottery -- archaeologically and historically speaking -- is often defined largely as vessels or utilitarian objects, but not exclusively. In the modern sense, in academia, art circles and industrial production, pottery is defined in many ways by many people. I referred you earlier to the previous discussion on the page (which you said was too long to read). You can see that, even on Wiki, modern clay workers have differing views on definitions. So -- "objects" is more inclusive of the many viewpoints. Hopefully I will have more time to work in the near future. Am copying this to pottery discussion for others to read as well. WBardwin 21:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I've never come across him before, I'm afraid, and can't really say much. He does seem somewhat abrasive, from a quick look at the article History, though my knowledge of the area doesn't allow me to say much more. I'll start keeping an eye on Pottery to get more of a feel for what's happening. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello,
Thank you for the support. I am mystified about the main contributor to Pottery History debate. His arguments are crude & illogical, and his references are very poor. Certainly he seems to have no understanding of pottery from the viewpoint of any discipline
I can only speculate regarding his motivation, perhaps 1) he’s simply wishes to engage in an argument for some personal satisfaction, or 2) he has an agenda to promote the pre-eminence of the Jomon finds– I’m aware from the non-Wikipedia world that nationalistic pride can influence individuals views on the various finds. Whilst this is of course only conjecture I can be sure of my reason which is to contribute to a subject in which I have an interest and some knowledge
I note from earlier comments that you have studied archaeology, and I hope you don’t think it presumptuous of me to therefore assume that you would agree that absolute claims can be rather dangerous. Additionally to such a background making for valuable contributions I think you may be more Wikipedia experienced than I which would most definitely be of assistance
Is it normal for Wikipedia articles to contain lists of references? From my experiences of written articles this would not only be considered bad practice but form grounds to be rejected for publication
Yes, M.W. Rossiter named the matilda effect after Matilda J. Gage. If You are interested in the work of Rossiter, I can send You a PDF. Plehn 15:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello WB, I was sorry to read about the illness in your family. The AOL system of dynamic IP addresses must be a menace, what do you have to do, keep logging on and off until you get allocated a dotted-quad that isn't blocked, I guess. Anyway, to the point. Things seem to be getting out of hand on the Pottery talk page and the article itself looks to be suffering as a result. What can we do about this? I'm seriously inclined to have a go at re-writing much of it in a level, neutral voice and hack out the axe-grinding. Regards, Nick. Nick 11:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Although we are supposed to assume good faith, I am starting to wonder about Brunnock. Every once in a while, on Wiki, I have run into someone who fights for the sake of fighting. I would agree that a neutral edit is desperately needed and I will be glad to help, as time permits. I will be going out of state again for a few days next week, however. I will go to the article today, and restore the version before the wrangling, then follow that with a revert. That will give us the two versions, in close access, for easy comparison. However -- with contention so very apparent -- it will be very difficult to calm things down. I have left notes with three admins of my acquantance. Perhaps one of them would be willing to help. Good to talk to you. WBardwin 20:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm away for a few days too, we're off to Edinburgh for a long week-end. So I'll hold-off doing anything on the Pottery front until I get back early next week. Regards, Nick. Nick 21:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints - re: your recent edit. That topic has been discussed on Wiki, in several areas, and resolved to read List of religions once classed as cults. Please see that article. Best wishes. WBardwin 06:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
above message left unsigned by 00:34, 23 April 2006 Hypernick1980
Wikipedia equals group concensus. After long -- very long -- discussions on a variety of articles, this is where the LDS movement has been placed in Wiki. You may not agree. That is fine. On List of groups referred to as cults it reads Inclusion of a group within this list is dependent upon that group being labelled a "cult" or "sect" by one or more of the listed sources. It does not imply that it has been proved, in any manner, that that group is a "cult" or "sect". Definitions, sources, and materials can all be cited, but Wikipedia's efforts are toward NPOV. True neutrality may be unattainable on religious articles, and that topic is often debated here as faith and a religion's place in the cosmos cannot be proven. But, your assertion probably belongs on the talk page at List of religions once classed as cults, where you can interact with editors involved in those discussions. Best wishes. WBardwin 06:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
When you reverted my image filename spelling correction, I was already uploading the proper image. Sorry if I lagged a little bit. MOD 21:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Sorry if I was hasty -- just on my watch list and we get so many vandals. Thanks for the fix. WBardwin 21:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Me too - but some good came of it - re using underscores in the links to misspelled filenames ;) Trödel 22:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for beginning the faith/edit edits on CJCoLDS.
On my drive home - I was thinking that wikipedia has been much more rewarding, and I have done much better at not getting emotionally involved and let things that happen on wikipedia effect my "real" life. But I couldn't remember who it was that I had been irritated by - I was so surprised when i got home to look through the history and see that it was you - anyway - I guess I just wanted to say it has been a good experience for me to work with you these last few months, and I am so glad when I decided to start editing again I didn't reread what happened and "look out" for that editor. Thx again for being a great editor and one with whom it is fun to collaborate. Trödel 01:22, 28 April 2006 (UTC) PS - I know this is kind of personal, I would have emailed but you don't have email enabled, or have not verified your email since they implemented that "feature."
Thank you. I try to be a good editor. And I never took our brief conflict very personally. Best. WBardwin 04:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Mormon Trail is the Mormon Collaboration of the month. Would you like to integrate it into the article? Others will then know where they can/should look for content. uriah923(talk) 05:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
integrate what? My list of locations from the talk page? It works as an outline, I suppose, but there is nothing set in stone about it. If everyone thinks it would look alright, I would be happy to copy it to the article. WBardwin 05:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Hey, nice job there. I'm working on a little project of adding photographs of grave markers of LDS historical figures. I had one for Emmeline B. Wells, she didn't have a Wiki article yet, so I put up a bare bones stub last night. I come back a few hours later, and there's a full article. So, I'm just saying, good job. Most impressive. (note left by Ryan Reeder 20:35, 7 May 2006)
Thank you -- she has been on my to-do list for awhile and I had a few sources to hand. WBardwin 02:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Agghh. Forgot the four tildes. Sorry.Ryan Reeder 05:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Aren't Western Raku a type of Raku as well? Sjschen 11:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Significant differences -- in clay bodies, ware style, glaze and process -- make the two types of raku distinct in appearance. The metallic glaze shown on the pot's body in the western raku picture would not be used in Japan (except perhaps by someone with a western education) and probably could not be produced by the Japanese firing/cooling technique. Western raku is definately derivative, but has some unique aspects too. There are common glaze types however. If we had a picture of a western style pot with a white or off white "crackle" glaze, it would probably do as a general example. Or we might be lucky and find a non-copyrighted image of a Japanese raku teabowl. I've not yet run into a Japanese potter here on Wiki who could take a photo of his/her or a friend's work -- but new people arrive all the time. Best wishes. WBardwin 03:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
success!! Stole a 16th century raku tea bowl image from the Chawan article. WBardwin 02:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Ah yes they are quite different! I guess you replied on you own page so I didn't see your reply to my question until a while ago :) Sjschen 08:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes - partially translation and partially paraphrase. Sorry that it was done so poorly that you easily spotted it. But you did an excellent job of cleaning it up. Tusen takk (a thousand thanks) - Williamborg 02:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
QuentinSmith has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk pages. Happy editing!
There are a number of things that may interest you. For example, you can go to an internet cafe, and download and install Firefox to a USB drive (dirt cheap these days) or removable media (practically free) then bring it home and run it. See [1]. Technically, you would be in compliance. I hope you get this sorted out, because I have some things I want to talk to you about. —Viriditas | Talk 21:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I don't think that "the LDS users group" owns the Joseph Smith articles, and I suspect that the reason that the LDS users group in particular is so insistent on "polygyny" is because they think that fewer people will know what it is than would know what polygamy is. "Polygamy" is the usual term used to refer to Joseph Smith's practice of Plural Marriage, and so it is the term that Wikipedia must use, whether the "LDS users group" would prefer that another term be used or not. It also has the benefit fo being perfectly true, and more inclusive than "polygyny". Someone can be a polygamist and not a polygynast, but all polygynasts are also polygamists. - Hoboken 06:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Greetings. Yes, if you read the discussion on the talk page, I was an integral participant all along. None of my edits contrevene a decided issue, so far as I can discern. Also note that despite my tenacity in including these contraversial folks, that I have added a larger number of mainstream folks, and I am not anti-LDS by any stretch. Just seeking balance. Dr U 05:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Good to hear from you. I haven't seen your name for awhile. Didn't mmean to intrude, but last I looked, the trend was for removing names from CF&C category and placing them on the alternate page. I'll look over the talk page again. Best wishes. WBardwin 05:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your improvements to the Sidney Rigdon article (especially in the Nauvoo period). Your edits and additions made a big difference. --TrustTruth 06:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
You're welcome -- just a little bit of effort, but I think the article still needs a lot of work. His missionary efforts in the early church were really remarkable and need more discussion. Hopefully, I'll get back to it soon. Best wishes. WBardwin 06:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Dear Sir, I do not understand why you systematiquement remove my link, which was present in this heading since Mars 2006, and met a great success by the number of visitors. On the council of another regulator, I wrote a new article, which brings really an enrichment to the section Kolob de Wikipedia. Since it exposes the interesting correlation between Kolob and Arquâ in the Bible. I am member of LDS Church in France, and this blog has the aim of interesting a maximum of Net surfers in the Restored Gospel. ask for the authorization to you of restore this bond Kolob Order, which was already there well before it is thus withdrawn in a so brutal way. Please, answer me and I really think that it brings one more in the bonds already suggested and from which some came to be added well after my link. Best regards. Adama
Adama, Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your note. I too am a member of the LDS Church, and I'm pleased to meet a French LDS member here. In regards to your "external link" at Kolob, I and (it appears) several other editors involved in the LDS project here, have removed the link several times. From my perspective, the issue is Wikipedia's policy on no original research and the need to strive for accuracy. My brief review of your site revealed many interesting ideas, but those ideas seem to be largely original to you. Congratulations on your insight and creativity. However, a practical definition of a blog is a site where an individual, his friends and associates can produce material for discussion, education and enlightenment. It is a place where ideas can be formulated and research presented. So, it is my opinion, that while sourced material may be presented and discussed, the conclusions on your link would fall under the category of independant research. As LDS editors here, we try and present information that is as accurate, informative and reliable as we can, and all material must be varifiable from more than one source. Alas, that means we are not free to be very creative. Below, please find material from Wikipedia's major policy page for your reference.
#Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. It is not a collection of source documents or trivia, a dictionary, a soapbox, a newspaper, vanity publisher, an experiment in anarchy or democracy, or a web directory. It is also not the place to insert your own opinions, experiences, or arguments — all editors must follow our no original research policy and strive for accuracy.
Please don't feel discouraged about your site and the Kolob article. The talk pages on each article are appropriate venues to present ideas you and your peers have discussed on your personal site, along with the sources of some of your information. After discussion, it is possible that some of your material could make it into the Kolob article or related articles. Best wishes. WBardwin 07:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Dear Sir, I thank you for your fast answer, say me if after debate between the regulators of Wkipedia, it is possible that I give the bond or that I incorporate an original article, known as it me on your forum. Will know that I do not want to be conceited or I do not know what. Simply I would like to bring my modest stone to the building of information on the attractive problem of Kolob. Personally I am registered with BYU as independent student in astronomy. I always impassioned myself for the astronomy and holy texts. I would be very happy to be able to be present at the sides of the others links to bring small more in knowledge on Kolob. Will also know that the fact of putting in Arquâ parallel in the Bible and Kolob is a weighty argument against the detractors of Joseph Smith. Because it is a positive proof. Yours sincerely. Adama
Adama, I would urge you to write a summary of your material on Arquâ and Kolob on Kolob's talk page, with biblical and other references, of course. Then I and other editors can look up the references, compare it with your presentation, and discuss our responses to the material. To start, I'll read Jeremiah, chapter 10 before going to bed tonight. I look forward to working with you on this and other LDS articles. Oh -- and call me W or WBardwin or even Hey, You. Best wishes. WBardwin 08:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Dear Sir, I thank you for your comprehension and your gentiless. It is with joy that I would subject an article on the subject, and can be would have I it chance to be able to give my link Kolob Order... For Jérémiah chapter 10, it is necessary to read the original in Aramaic of it. Into English, one translated by convenience "Earth". Joseph Smith is right when he says that it should be accepted the Bible insofar as it is correctly translated. Moreover, in one of these speeches, I believe that it speaks about these things. With are the fact, you LDS member? God bless you. Adama
I make an attempt to give the link Kolob order to the article on astronomy and Kolob, which brings new elements to what already exists on Wikipedia. I hope that this time, it will make the consensus. I wanted to also say that the other links present on the site are not commercial, but strictly cultural, and that all is free on my site. I request so that Kolob order can remain on the links present. I also announce you that one of the link to the Kolob article is not valid any more for a long time. It is that : "symbolic interpretation of Kolob". The miens would come in time to replace that, which was closed on the Web Yours sincerely and with hope. I request so that Kolob Order is accepted. Adama
Dear friend, I wanted to teach you a brilliant news! The Prophet Gordon B. Hinclkey decided the construction of a Temple in France, we are all very happy of this news. Lastly, that made years that we await it is a rain of blessings for our country. If not I did not understand the response to my message, one speaks about blocking, etc. But does my link seem to be accepted? It is always on the page, and if it is that, I am also super content. Live the Church, lives the USA, lives France! Yours sincerely. Adama
This is very exciting news. The people of the Church in France have waited a long time for a temple. You made a reference to a blocking message -- wikipedia and its adminstrators use 'blocking' to try and control/reduce the vandalism that is so prevelant on the internet. I doubt the blocki was directed to you -- but was probably aimed at other users of your computer IP number. If you would copy the message here -- or better yet, to Visorstuff as he is an administrator for Wikipedia -- we could help you sort out any issues you personally might have to deal with. Better yet, why not sign in and get a User name and ID here. You would have fewer generic IP computer problems if you do. Best wishes. WBardwin 20:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Hello, I thank you for your answer. Indeed, the message of blockings was not addressed to me. To have a name of user and a indentification, on American Wikipedia, I would be very happy. But being French, do I have the right to postulate with that on the American part of Wikipedia??? If not that would be with pleasure. Thank you still for your gentiless. Yours sincerely. Adama
Well -- it's not an American Wikipedia, it's an English speaking Wikipedia. We have registered users from most English speaking countries (Canada, Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand, Phillipines, Tonga, etc.), and registered users from other countries who want to contribute to English speaking articles. There are Wikipedias in a number of languages, although I have never looked to see if there is one in French. Ah, here is the link to the French Wikipedia! [2] Some of the users here, including returned LDS missionaries, sign on to other Wikipedias so that they can maintain their skills in a foreign language. So, registering here as a user might be good English practice for you, and signing on to the French Wikipedia might be good for the growth of that encyclopedia. Or, as most talented Europeans do, you might already have another language you would like to explore. All Wikipedia access is free and easy to do. So think about it. Best...... WBardwin 05:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi! Thank you very much for your precise details and what you say. I to be to "user" in Anglo-Saxon Wikipedia, which wants to postulate well should be made? Thus I would have the occasion to perfect my English. I am super content with that. Thank you very much. Adama
Thank you. Still rough yet, but as I said, I keep finding little things to add on the Southwest articles. Working on your dates for Chaco, there are many disagreements from the sources on the early years. Will try and find the most recent opinions. WBardwin 05:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'm going to be honest and say that it's still really not relevant. Environments is what the geography section is for. We can deduce what kinds of environments they have to survive in from the geography section. We can mention it in the history section, but showing pictures of it is going too far. History is for showing how things were and things that happened. I'm not too good with words, but I'm still fully convinced that it's irrelevant. bob rulz 07:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I probably couldn't find non-copyrighted pictures of the prehistoric people, and yes there are too many pictures. 90% of which are irrelevant...as for pictures of the environment pertaining to how prehistoric Native American cultures try to adapt to them, that should be on a section about Native American culture or Native American history, and even then should be no more than 1 or possibly 2 pictures. And I do love to write, and I will be contributing to the History of Utah article...I just haven't really gotten around to it yet. Now that I know other people are trying to help out, I'll be more motivated to get working. I'm a natural procrastinator...
On a side note, how much could you actually contribute to Wikipedia:WikiProject Utah? How much do you know besides history? I've been trying to get that wikiproject revived without succes...I would also like to see a Geography of Utah article, but I haven't been in the mood to make any big changes lately (unless other people can help out with it). bob rulz 08:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I'm a historian and archaeologist -- no doubt about it. But I do a lot of biographical information as well, and I've lived in northern Utah for a long time. My Wiki time goes up and down -- I have varying family and work responsibilities. I also find that I work in a particular area furiously and then get distracted for awhile. Sometimes that's a good thing, because my work looks much better when I edit mercilessly after letting it cool for a while.
Geography of Utah would be a challenge. Such a wide variety of zones, geology and ecosystems. A quick looks shows lots of links, i.e.: Salt Lake City, Wasatch Mountains, Great Salt Lake, Salt Flats, Oquirrh Mountains, Bear River, Uinta Mountains, Weber River, Jordan River, Utah Lake, Promontory. I don't have any books on my shelves specifically on Geography, but I know some of my history books have at least a chapter. I've spent time in northern Utah and the extreme southeastern Utah, and did some grad work on land use and settlement patterns in the Uintah Basin, so I could probably help most in those areas. Create the article, and I'm sure I'll dabble if nothing else. Best.......WBardwin 08:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh, don't worry about the wide range of environments and stuff like that. I'm a geography expert, espeically with Utah. I know even more about climate. Just check out Climate of Salt Lake City...it's the page I cherish the most out of all of the pages I contribute to (and I still feel like it needs heavy editing). I shouldn't have any problems actually writing up lots of content on a Geography of Utah article...I'd get carried away. bob rulz 09:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Hiya, W, sorry to see it never lets up. :-( But at least you're famous! Frutti di Mare 20:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC).
Thanks for letting me know -- let's hope this fame is fleeting! And thanks for your note on your talk page about an admin nomination. You aren't the first to suggest it, and I have an interest. But, on a personal level, there is considerable illness in my immediate family and, with work, the time I have available here is quite erratic. I'm such a conscientious type (and virtuous too, according to Bishonen) that I would want to contribute in some admin function. I told myself I would try and become an admin after my 10,000 edit, which is coming soon. So, I will keep your offer in mind. Best wishes. WBardwin 22:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I wanted to bring you up to date on a little project I'm undertaking. See the discsussion at Trodel's page: User_talk:Trödel/Archive_4#The_Project_and_template, and my own talk page.
I've yet created what will undoubtedly be another controversial, but much needed navigation template - let me know what you think: {{LDSproject}} -Visorstuff 00:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Response to Anon166 -- waiting for access to system while autoblocked.
I am questioning -- as historians have done for fifty years -- Brodie's methodology. The quote is not accurate nor can be used as evidence of a conspiracy simply because it is footnoted. Historians use established documentable historical methods. Brodie did not. Historians question their sources and examine alternative views. Brodie did not. Brodie shopped her sources until she found something that fit her agenda, then used it, often without reference to context and reliability. This is similar to using/citing internet links today, as the internet is chock full of unreliable POV material (which is one reason Wikipedia tries to be a more dependable source). We are writing an article here based on a historical event. Historical rules of evidence and sources apply. My notes above are in reference to standard historical rules. You did not really respond to them. Can you provide some of that information? If you edit Wiki articles -- it is your responsibility to work on documenting all material you enter. It is irresponsible to present Brodie's POV without additional work on your part. As to policy here -- obviously, even between the two of us, there is no concensus on this material, so it should not be included in the article until concensus is reached. I will not revert today -- but will alert other editors of this article to this issue. WBardwin 20:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I reviewed the talk page and find your position more persuasive - --Trödel 04:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
