User:WBardwin/Archive 1 (Jan-July 2005)

This is an user archive produced by User:WBardwin containing discussion material dated through July 31st, 2005.

---

---

Re: Smallpox

Thanks for your efforts in recovering the Smallpox article from vandalism. My contributions have been minor to date and you've recovered them. Cheers, Courtland 19:30, 2005 Feb 27 (UTC)

Smallpox disputed item message

I put up the Template:Disputeabout in response to the the discussion you were having on Talk:Smallpox ... so it wasn't a coincidence but a reaction. As for a title, the dispute might fit into the Biological warfare article, the [[Germ_warfare#Examples_of_biological_warfare|Examples of biological warfare] section ... or a new "disputed examples" section. Do you think evidence suggests that historical revisionism is taking place? Adding information to the British colonization of the Americas would be welcomed I think as I agree with one commentator that it "seems to be a glorified laundry list of British colonies in the Americas, with little historical perspective, discussion of reasons, government policy, or overviews." Rather than start a new article, perhaps adding the information to this particular article might spark others to contribute their own pro and con issues about the colonization, thereby having both direct and indirect effects. Courtland 01:17, 2005 Mar 4 (UTC)

oh, another place that would be appropriate, but not as obviously associated with the (unwitting?) purpetrators would be the article Population history of American indigenous peoples. Courtland 01:19, 2005 Mar 4 (UTC)

Linking once

A minor point to note: The usual prefered practice is to wikilink only the first appearance of a term (like pottery) in an article unless there is some pressing stylistic need to do otherwise. Keep up your good work! Cheers, -- Infrogmation 00:58, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for editing Hyrum Smith

Thanks for adding additional information for Hyrum Smith, it is great to have new people help on the LDS stuff!!! I have added it to the "Peer Review" section of the Template:LDSTaskBox and the Wikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement. If you want to add the LDSprojectbox to any page: copy the following text into the page you want to add it and it will place on the right margin horizontally at the vertical location that you add the text. See my user page for an example (second task list down).

{| style="float:right"
|- valign="top"
|width=330| {{LDSTaskBox}}
|}

Thanks again and Welcome!!! Trödel|talk 14:59, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

LDS Bio Edits

Thanks again for bringing these bio's up to respectability. I will take a look at the ones listed. As to the project, your help on the articles is probably doing more than anything else - I have tried to keep adding your entries to the Template:LDSTaskBox, but feel free to add them whenever you want - don't worry about the complex table formatting - just drop me a line if something gets formatted weird. Callings and work seem to get in the way. Trödel|talk 03:36, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the note - I was reading some edits last night, and glad to see you finished up - I will add to the peer review list. Trödel|talk 12:21, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I ended up being gone longer than my vacation, but I finally was able to see your excellent work filling out the bios of early church leaders. I added some comments on a few details of the Thomas B. Marsh bio on the discussion page of that article. More on the rest hopefully soon; keep up the good work! --John Hamer 06:34, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You're doing beautiful work. Keep it up! I really like the work you did on the Thomas B. Marsh page. Jgardner 19:25, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. The work has been fun! Hamer brought up some good points on the Marsh page that I 've been mulling over. NPOV is hard on religious sites - but the emotion of the times needs to be reflected in LDS articles as well. So Marsh will probably be edited a little more in the future. I hope to get to Heber C. sometime soon. WBardwin 20:07, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Hohokam

I like the additional materials you've added to the Hohokam page. It really sums up the essence of classification of prehistoric peoples. I'm wondering, however, if it may be a bit too broad to be included in an article that's supposed to be specifically about the Hohokam. For example, the exact same information could be included with the Mogollon and Anasazi articles. That suggests to me that an additional article (cross linked from the Hohokam, Mogollon, and Anasazi articles) should be created for the material you added. Do you have any strong feelings on that suggestion? Let me know either here, on my talk page, or at Talk:Hohokam. Also, the material is very well written and I just had a passing concern that it may have been taken verbatim from a textbook? If not, you've done a bang-up job of summary and I commend you on it. If it was copied, the material is no less terrific for inclusion, but it would need to be re-written. Get back to me, and keep up the good work. --ABQCat 11:19, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your note on yesterday's addition to the Hohokam article -- yes, I put the same material on the Anasazi and the Mogollon pages as well. I have considered a Southwestern Peoples page, but that would be a really big project. I suppose a page linked to archaeology called "Cultural divisions" would also be a possibility. The paragraphs are based on the source I placed at the base of the article, but only the last paragraph contains some verbatim material (see reference note). I intend to boil this down a little more (in each article) for general consumption and then beef it up for a Southwestern archaeology/peoples project (if and when). Feel free to edit, if needed. WBardwin 08:18, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Pottery

Thanks for your intervention (though he seems to have disappeared for now). I renamed his article Korean pottery in line with what I found to be the Wikipedia approach, but he reverted my changes to the article, and created a new category (Category:Korean Ceramics) in order to place his article there. I've now cleared it and put it up for deletion.

The business of who it was is puzzling; it was an anon IP address, but manually signing with a user name — and the User's Talk page contained some dsturbing indications that it's an account used by a number of people, and left open and unsecured on a (public?) terminal somewhere. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:47, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I thought that you might be interested in this, left for me in the early hours of this morning:

Korean Ceramics redirect to Korean pottery

From: POofYS.

Sir, The Korean Ceramics article is being compiled by a group of scholars from Jeonju University, and a noted Korean ceramic institute in Seoul, but being templated out by our office by one of our secretaries. This is part of an initiative to get more accurate information on Korean classical arts, studies, royal history, and Korean Joseon era history on the internet. And as well to encourage young students and scholars to write in English on Korean history for foreigners.

We will lead templates for entries, but they will be followed up and verified by other Korean scholars and those on the net who want to contribute accurate and timely material.

For information please see here.

Ceramics experts will soon be having accounts and there extensive list of publications will indicate that the material emplaced within the Korean Ceramics article is accurate.

Should you wish you can correspond with us in Korean.

best wishes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:POofYS (message left by 65.95.123.208)

Received your message and appreciate your aim in providing more accurate and comprehensive information on Korean ceramics. Certainly there is limited information on Wiki sites, and frankly in western publications as well. When I began working on the Wiki pottery articles about three months ago, they had a strong British perspective. I have been trying to provide more American terms and methods, as well as what information I learned in college regarding Japanese ceramic history and methodology. Korean information would be very welcome. However, please keep in mind that Korean terms -- translated into English -- may have a very different meaning to the practicing clay people who will be your primary English readers. While your information may well be accurate, it could easily be misunderstood. Please see my notes regarding the semantics over Pottery (generally preferred in my circle - and apparently in England) and Ceramics (much too broad and often misused here). Once your articles are written, let's set up some kind of clay tree for the Wiki clay articles and refine definitions. Hopefully we can reach concensus -- and perhaps find others out there in the international clay community. Good luck in your efforts. Comments welcome. WBardwin 22:08, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I thought of suggesting that they set up their own site, but then worried, first, that their input would be lost to Wikipedia, and secondly, that I might be being presumptuous. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης)

• I'm afraid that I'm not an admin, but I'll lend my voice. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:28, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• • I can bring in an admin — but I'm not sure that that will do any good. For all this person knows, we're both admins (in so far as he knows what an admin is; they're just users with some extra powers). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:38, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Joseph Smith

I tend to shy away from too much meddling in religious articles...the NPOV policy is nearly impossible to implement - but when there are obvious mistatements of fact, I feel competent to deal with them. So I'll be happy to check in every so often. I also was surprised at the editing note on that page, which suggested that reversion was a primary tool to deal with disagreements! Much better to suggest a rephrasing that to revert! - Nunh-huh 09:58, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Anon's tend to hit and run on this one - so I think the LDS users group reverts more often than they probably should. But it is such a long article now! WBardwin 10:08, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for changing - we need to be careful no to completely "revert" changes made by anon's unless they are vandalism. If we can use anything from the edits, we should. That said, if it completely goes against a decision made on the talk page, or is blatantly near vanalism, we should treat accordingly. I believe Tom (User:Hawstom) has stronger feelings about how to deal with them than I do.

As far as the specified edits, Brodie's work has been thouroughly discussed. Unless context is placed around the link, I believe it should not be included for the reasons discussed on the talk page. I would leave a note on the User's talk page, include a welcome, such as the one designed by Trodel ([1])to encourage a continuation of editing, AND to explain your recent reverts. We need more Non-LDS editors for the Wikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement to build additional credibility. Most newbie's don't read current research (Mormon, non-Mormon and Anti-Mormon alike) and when things are pointed out, makes more sense to them (even if they disagree). Hopefully, this editor can become a valued contributor to the project, if he is willing to try to be NPOV and use half-way recent research, or explain the context of using older research.

Incidentally, this new user: User:Vegasbright is smart, as he has not been attacking doctrines of the Church, but rather cultural beliefs and folklore. To me, this is a much stronger argument, and should be explained in context. However, he is blatantly wrong about many points. For example, I'm not sure I know anyone who thinks that the Smithsonian uses the BOM as a way to direct research. And his edits at Martin Harris frankly were ridiculous if you've done any serious study of the Three Witnesses. But I digress. Keep up the good work - happy editing. -Visorstuff 18:44, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Luke

I'd combine the information at Luke Johnson and Luke S. Johnson and then do a re-direct from one to the other so someone else doesn't do the same. No special powers needed :) There is a page that has all of the apostles on it - may want to check out List of articles about Mormonism and Quorum of the Twelve for a list of prominent bios already created. -Visorstuff 12:07, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Korean Ceramics vs Pottery

Hi. The reason the category was deleted was because it was listed on WP:CFD and there were no objections to the deletion after a week. RedWolf 07:35, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

POofYS origin site for this confusion. WBardwin 07:48, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Anon on Joseph Smith

Sorry I didn't reply earlier - I had to drop Wiki'ing for couple weeks because of work. The LDS Welcome tempalte is ready - you just use the following on the anon's talk page:

{{LDSWelcome|reverted page|WBardwin}}

Of course replace "reverted page" with the page you had to revert. I have added this to the anon you mentioned on my talk page so you won't have to look up the details again. Thanks for asking! Trödel|talk 18:24, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)</nowiki>

Pipil

I didn't even remember making that comment.  :) It looks a lot better now. RickK 07:37, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I like the additions of 'Tradition, mythology and archaeology strongly suggest', this goes some way to suggest how ropey the evidence actually is. I suspect that subsequent revisions may in fact tone down some of the 'certainty' still further, but as that was the tone in the primary source article I think it can stay until another source suggests otherwise. I will dig through what I can find about Topilzin, as this page is rather unrefined, and it may shed more light on the Pipil.Pseudosocrates 13:51, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Chaco

Great. Have you been there? I visited in 1994. --Viriditas | Talk 06:48, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You're telling me. I still can't get over the grandeur of Pueblo Bonito after seeing what was left of it more than a decade ago. I think we really need to add before (artists impression of couse) and after drawings/photos of that site, as it is visually stunning. When I was there in 1994, I heard that there had been some interesting research regarding the area being a crossroads of sorts, with some evidence for a major trade route beyond North America. Any idea what became of that research and if it ever panned out? I believe I recall something about a route to Central or South America, but I could be mistaken. I'm aware of the trade in the four corners area, however. --Viriditas | Talk 06:59, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I knew there was something to this. I've seen the ballcourts at Chichen Itza, but had no idea we had them in the states. --Viriditas | Talk 07:16, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for your message. I think that other people also assumed that I was an admin, so it seemed polite to become one. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:08, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for inviting me to join the LDS Movement page. I've done so. billlund 14:13, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

Korean pottery & RedWolf

I've just looked up RedWolf (talk · contributions), and he's clearly a Categories-type person. I can't find any sign of Korean-related categories being put up for deletion (nor do they appear in his contributions list). What exactly happened? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:44, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I missed that on CfD — I normally try to keep an eye on what's happening there. To be honest, I don't think that a special category is needed yet, and the Pottery category page only has a couple of sub-categories. If and when there are more articles relevant to Korean pottery, we can think about how to create them then. Is that OK with you? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:57, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry

I saw the disputed notice in the talk page and thought it should be on the main article. Sorry. --Sgeo^TC 01:59, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Artefact

What do you have against artefacts (Sphere (novel))? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:43, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think that both versions are used both sides of the Atlantic, though I'm not sure. This one actually gets mentioned in the MoS (Wikipedia:Manual of style#National varieties of English. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:01, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Evolution/Reaction

I don't fully understand your position or what you were implying on the Talk:Evolution page. I have been as patient and understanding to all of my debators as personally possible; they have nevertheless fired several blatant personal attacks and attempted to inferiorate my opinions and arguments, which are 100% legitimate. Please see my user discussion page for examples. As of now, my comments have been removed from the discussion page without my consent, which would technically be considered unconstitutional if this were a court of law. Although this is not a court of law, I am assuming wikipedia is not an autocracy, and that I have the right to petition and not have my opinions removed like wikipedia is some sort of second-hand communist-dominated encyclopedia. If my opinions were unscientific, then why were they removed from the discussion page? You must understand how much I am holding onto my patience when I see this happen! My arguments were about editing the article, but after having to chronically repeat myself, the talk page did get quite conjested. Is this not slightly mysterious to you? Do you think that people like that are going to spread their beliefs if other people know that they are acting in such a manner - removing the most powerful of others' opinions but keeping their own? If I have to give my entire life to keeping worms like that from infiltirating my country's education system and brainwashing kids until they bring guns to school wearing shirts that say "natural selection," on Hitler's birthday and shoot up their classmates, then I will! Some of the content in that article is NOT NPOV! It is very capable of being NPOV if about two sentences were removed from it, but for some reason, those two sentences seem to be so important (remarkably they are both targeted towards Christianity and have absolutely 0---NOTHING---0 to do with evolutionary theory) that such a turbulent, outrageous debate must occur instead. PLEASE- I love wikipedia. It is an incredible horizon and a wonderful addition to the Internet. Let's make sure we consider the most important subjects as carefully as possible. Salva 15:49, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My friend - Evolution is not my article or one of high priority to me. I found your edit when I was spending my customary 30 minutes at the close of my edit time looking over non-logged in user entries. Wikipedia gets a lot of true vandalism -- people blanking or moving pages, placing curses and obscenities in the midst of articles, or shuffling information around. We all have to work at cleaning up these types of edits.

Evolution is a controversial, often vandalized site. When I came across your edits, I noticed several things. First, at that time, you were an anon user, usually indicating that you are new to the system. Second, you edited the introduction to the article, which is also a new person thing to do. And third, I saw that your short edit was relatively casual in structure, had a modest point of view (you should see some of the other controversial pages!) and probably contained things that had been discussed on the talk page. I checked the talk page and found that some of your points had been discussion topics. One Wiki protocol is to give the new person the benefit of the doubt, often by moving their edit to the discussion page or by copy editing to remove obvious POV or issues that have already been settled. Moving edits to the discussion page is not censorship, but allows the new editor to read related discussion topics, refine his/her thoughts, and gather comments from others. We all can learn new things. Since I don't know the site and don't know what concensus had been reached by the editing group, I did not feel that I should delete or change your comments without giving you and the group a chance to respond. You are always free to place your edits back into the article, but in the Wiki we have to defend our edits, our sources and our opinions if the edit is to stay in place. In contrast to internet talk sites, blogs, and discussion groups, the encyclopedia is intended to provide as neutral and balanced body of information as possible, because our readers need to be confident that they are not reading one individual or group's perspective. Cooperation and concensus are important concepts here.

So, my intention was to preserve your edit so others could see it, so you could explain it, and so that everyone could learn from the discussion. I did not remove your comment from the discussion page, nor have I even read the discussion that evidently led to it being removed. Since Evolution is not one of my regular watch pages, I don't know the politics and people related to that edit group.

In my short time here, I have found that feeling personally attacked when others edit your work, in whatever article, is generally non-productive. If you want to edit Evolution on an ongoing basis, I hope that you will try to resolve this dispute to those who have responded to your original edit. Like any community, there are people who are easy to work with and then there are others.The administrators here are users who have been "elevated" by votes from all the editors. One admin I've found approachable is Mel Etitis, if you feel you truly have a grievance. I also hope you stick around. Peace. WBardwin 04:13, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Syphilis and Nietzsche

First, a quick apology: I'm new to editing here at wikipedia, so I don't yet have a good grasp on the procedures. I was the anonymous user who altered the syphilis page twice. I've added the references alleging that Nietzsche did not actually have syphilis to Talk:Syphilis. I look forward to the discussion. Zensufi 02:22, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your edits were really no problem at all. This kind of information (almost speculation, if you realize how hard things like this are to verify) gets debated back and forth all the time. That's part of the "game" here, after all. The syphilus discussion is also on the Nietzsche talk page right now. They have some references there, but I've only read one of them and found it lacking in scholarly reliability. Let's both do some research and maybe someone else will chime in. Thanks for checking in. WBardwin 02:37, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Idiot

"In ancient Athens, an idiot was a person who declined to take part in public life, such as democratic city government. Since such activities were honorable and could directly affect all citizens, idiot was a term of derision." Could you supply the Greek word you are talking about after the word "idiot" (they did not speak English). Also, if you could supply a reference for the whole sentence? Thanks. 4.250.177.178 15:24, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is not my paragraph. Its author obtained it from or wrote it in the Athenian democracy article. Since the root of the word is Greek (see your dictionary insert), I simply restored this material after your unexplained deletion. I also copy edited your material to make your edit blend with the previous article. Wiki protocol suggests that if you wish to delete a block of material for cause, move it to the discussion page and explain why. This allows the original editor to respond. Peace. WBardwin 15:34, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Response To Pottery Welcome Note

Thanks for the welcome note. My interest in Pottery is mostly as a collector, primarily North Dakota Pottery though I also have some Southwestern and some ancient artifacts. I forgot to log in when I entered my maiden article on North Dakota Pottery but have had to come back and edit out some of my mistakes in it. As I have time, I will be interested in reading your articles on other types of pottery. WPB 25 Apr 2005

Re: Parley P. Pratt

I don't question that he is (or was) important - however, the article as written doesn't do much to make clear why his is important. It really should say why he is notable in the first few sentances, before giving general biographical info. From the piece as written, I gathered that he was a significant figure of some sort in the early LDS church, but I couldn't really tell why. Your new introductory sentances help a lot, thanks. --Dcfleck 03:01, 2005 May 3 (UTC)

I noticed we don't have an article for List of Apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or some such. I am not sure we are going to be able to have an article for every LDS apostle, and even if we are, it will take a long time. Why not start with a list, and then simply write articles as time, interest, and notability permits? I must say I am not versed on Wikipedia policy on Lists. Tom Haws 15:32, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

Such an LDS list exists at: [2] - Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. Certainly, I would have a copyright concern if we simply copied it to Wiki -- someone put a lot of work into it, but there is nothing creative about a list. Perhaps we could ask permission? If we chose to use it, it needs updating with the recent deaths of two and the calling of their replacements. And we should probably double check dates, etc. WBardwin 07:03, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

I tried unsuccessfully to contact Grampa Bill some time back. His work is good enough that we seem to be coming back to it again and again. I don't know what to do. I even asked his ISP if they could forward a message to him. Tom Haws 14:36, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

Reference: Wikipedia:Lists

Apostle list. Cool. Tom Haws 21:37, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Categories on user pages

Would you mind deactivating the categories and tags on your sandbox pages? In particular, User:WBardwin/sandbox has a number of "live" categories and tags that result in your page appearing in lists of articles. Categories can easily be deactivated by dropping a bracket or by adding a colon in front of the word "category". Templates are best 'killed' by dropping a curly bracket. Thanks, -Willmcw 09:53, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing those. It's not a life-or-death issue (what on wikipedia is?) - but it's very odd to be perusing a list, especially a list of POV artilces and see some editor's user page. Anyway, we've all done it. Not to worry. Cheers, -Willmcw 05:44, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

Thomas Knowlton

If the template isn't one (like VfD or copyvio) that says that you shouldn't, then anyone who has done the work can delete it. In fact I've done it now, as I went and had a look at the article (from a single sentence to a full article in under two days — impressive). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:45, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the tag and for the compliment. I find I get compulsive about worthy stubs. WBardwin 09:52, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Antonine Plague etc

Who was the mid-3rd century pagan who wrote a diatribe against Christians, linking them with calamities, including plague? It would strengthen the plague/Decian persecution connection. (Welcome to Wikipedia, btw!)--Wetman 08:40, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Arnobius! --Turn of the 4th century actually. Inserted a quote attributing plague to Christians. --Wetman 10:15, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Great Plague of Vienna

Hey WBardwin, I just created this article, and I was hoping you could help me out with it in any way you can, especially because of your work with Great Plague of London. I can't really find any more info on it from just the books I have with me, or the Internet. Also, it could probably use some word choice help (it was late, I was tired). I guess Great Plague of Milan will have to come next, now that I think about it... :) Well, thanks for any help. --Dmcdevit 08:21, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

I dug out a little more information on this outbreak in Vienna and added it to your new article. If we want to do something about Milan in 1629, it might be better to rename it the "Italian Plague of 1629-1631." Many of the Italian cities (Venice, Florence, Bologna, and throughout Lombardy) were hit just as hard as Milan but, because of its trading empire, its outbreak is better known. Hope the info helps. WBardwin 00:57, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for that. Also, I'm curious about Great Plague of London's redirect to Great Plague. Shouldn't it be the other way around? But now, especially with this new article, maybe "Great Plague" should just be a disambig. Thanks for your help. --Dmcdevit 05:05, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

The "Great Plague" redirect set up was around when I arrived. A disamig page should be just fine, since there are other "Great Plagues" as well. These are the ones that I know about. There are probably others.

Great Plague of Athens (430-427 BC)

causal agent: bubonic plague/smallpox/measles/typhus??

Great Plague of England (1348-1350)

causal agent: bubonic plague

Great Plague of Iceland (1402-1404)

causal agent: bubonic plague

Great Plague of Ireland (1348-1351)

causal agent: bubonic plague

Great Plague of London (1664-1665)

causal agent: bubonic plague

Great Plague of Milan (1629-1631)

aka Italian Plague of 1629-1631.

causal agent: bubonic plague

Great Plague of Scotland (1348-1350)

causal agent: bubonic plague

Great Plague of Vienna (1679-1680's)

causal agent: bubonic plague

WBardwin 19:32, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Wow, good one. Here's some more I can think of offhand: the Plague of Justinian, 541, is known as the Great Plague (possibly just the Great Plague of Constantinople); The Black Death is often called the Great Plague (of Europe) as well; theres the Tolkien fictional Great Plague (Middle-earth); the yellow fever plague in Philadelphia in 1793 has been called the Great Plague; the bubonic plague outbreak in Marseilles in 1722; and I believe it is also a biblical reference, but I can't remember where from (Moses' plagues on Egypt?); one of Nostradamus' oft-touted predictions has to do with a cryptically pronounced "Great Plague"; and the term has also apocryphally been applied (in book titles and things) to the 1918 influenza epidemic, AIDS today, and the SARS outbreak (and probably others). --Dmcdevit 20:37, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Okay, so I've created [[Plague (disambiguation), leaving Plague as a redirect that can now be employed to give some general information and guide readers to the Main articles..." of each outbreak, perhaps even including redlinks to some of the plagues listed above. WBardwin, you're the one to come up with some starter text. Just re-edit Plague and substitute! --Wetman 21:40, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Join the bank

Ask for an account at User_talk:Bank_of_Wikipedia. I'd like to transfer some funds for your service. Jgardner 20:42, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Be sure to mention I referred you. I get a small finder's fee. Jgardner 20:53, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Once upon a time

I'm sorry I didn't respond to your thing on my talk page, I've been busy and simply forgot. I apologise. Frankly, after not recieving no response to my chapter, I got tired of it. I can take a look at it again, but I suggest that the project is moved to wikicities, as I doubt it would survive a VfD (then again, the chess championship did so you never know, but I think it wouldn't). Right now I am neck up in trying to program so that you can view most wanted pages correctly. But I will take a look as soon as I'm done with that (or atleast tired :D) gkhan 17:48, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

What would you like this warning box to say? Where should I put it? I need some more info before I make it. Once you provide me with these things, I will be happy to make it and put it where you would like it to go. Rentastrawberry 21:46, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

I have no strong preferences -- when I stole your warning box I though something with a murder theme (a dagger or pistol) for the picture would be fun. Hermoine### (I forget her numbers) stole it from my chapter site too. It could be a place we could put the novel's title when we decide on one -- or a "Murder Most Foul" or "read at your own risk" kind of thing. I was looking, I guess, for someway to unify the effort. Even though I'm new to the site, it appears the project needs some kind of jolt. Think about it - and about writing a little. I hope that my suggestions cause some action, at least. Thanks WBardwin 22:23, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I'll play with it a little bit, and when I think that it might be good, I'll put it here on your discussion page and then play with it a little more. About the writing a chapter, the Once Upon a Time thing is crazy. Everyone is doing there own thing it seems. I don't really understand what's going on and I don't really have time with school and all, but during the summer if this "project" is still going on, maybe I'll write something.Rentastrawberry 22:33, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

How do you like this.

The following page might contain excess brutality and murder. But hell, it sure is interesting.

Rentastrawberry 22:53, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

J. Reuben Clark

"May I remind you that members of the SS were widely esteemed in Nazi Germany as examples of loyalty, diligence, benevolence, respect and practically every other virtue? Does it follow then that we would should discount the historic account of the SS' barborous cruelty and inhumanity? This is an extreme example of course. By using it, I am by no means comparing J. Reuben Clark to the Nazis, but it illustrates well that sentimental episodes abound in almost all biographies from Napoleon to Lenin, and from Himmler to Stalin. Judgments about virtue and integrity should therefore be best left to the reader. Have enough confidence in your audience to let them draw their own conlusions from the the facts that you present. Therein is your contribution, not in moralizing, which belongs somewhere else.

(...the relevant paragraph from an anon "HighSky" contribution on a talk page which resulted in the discussion below. WBardwin)

I am sorry that I offended you - there was no intent to do so. There is no reason for this to be included - as you point out. I realize that you don't support my actions; however, I don't regret it and would do it again. I refrain from further removal only because I now know you would be offended and I find that worse than the comment. I.e. I would not purposeful offend someone even if that means an offensive comment must remain. Had I known you would be offended I wouldn't have done it - sorry about that.

There are several reasons why it should be removed 1) ad hominem, 2) weakens the comments, 3) encourages reinforcement of the comment through denial, and 4) distracts us from doing something useful. Trödel|talk 23:59, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So -- one word in my comment is worth causing a fuss -- Naziism is a perfectly acceptable example of the anon's point, which is that personally oriented statements about an individual can be used to project a POV and ultimately develop propaganda. In this case, the example was extreme but also apt. When you changed the anon statement, you did not leave an edit statement to that effect. You did not state on the talk page that you had removed material for cause nor did you state your cause. You left no audit trail of your actions. When you changed the material in my comment, you also did not address it in the edit statement nor did you mention it in your comment.

Now about editing another's comments. Here on Wikipedia we have many rules, as you so carefully cite. But --in Wikipedia - the content of an individual's comments and edits are used as evidence in formal disputes and are also used to judge another's perspective and competance. If everyone can edit everyone's comments without permission and/or explanation, than the use of visable material as evidence has no validity. Since examining the edit history to find the true or original contents is sometimes a long process, anything on talk/discussion pages which stands attached to a person's ID would be generally assumed to be their position. In summary, altering another's statement, even slightly, alters their publicly stated opinion and reputation. From a historian's perspective, that amounts to altering a historic record and creates an unreal or biased perspective. In short -- it promotes a lie, no matter how carefully we step around it. I stand by my statements. That is why I place my ID on them. I don't want others here to misunderstand my words because they do not serve another's purpose. I would never do you the discourtesy of altering, in any way, your public opinion. So --please grant me the same courtesy -- respond to my comments but do not edit them. WBardwin 02:00, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have apologized - what more do you want - the concepts is summarized well enough with the references to lenin and stalin - adding further legitmacy to inappropriate comments in the edit history could only embarras the original editor, or reinforce them by denying them. Trödel|talk 02:22, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please see original paragraph above: Although the example is extreme, as the author notes, there is nothing here to embarrass anyone nor was there any reason, in my opinion, to edit this statement or refute any points.WBardwin 02:35, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A cardinal rule of good communication is never to repeat an accusation in the course of denying it, it only reinforces the accusation. "Do NOT think of an elephant in pink." I assume good faith that the editor did not want to reinforce it. But it does - and continuing to talk about it does not vitiate the fact that not only does he make the comparison but he repeats the comparison to deny that he is comparing them. Trödel|talk 03:31, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand your point above. Clark was not attacked in any way. What "it" are does the editor need/want to reinforce? In any case, I consider the matter closed. WBardwin 04:05, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, which I take it concerned the above discussion. In response, Wikipedia policy is clear: one is only justified in altering another person's comments when they're making personal attacks, or in order to make the formatting clearer (the latter especially shouldn't involve the removal of any content). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:58, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Refactoring" – that is, the rewriting or organising of a Talk page fo archiving purposes, or for increased clarity – is dealt with at Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages. Editing personal attacks is dealt with at Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks. As you'll see, neither is policy, as the taboo against editing other people's comments is very strong; I think that most people are happy with the idea of editing personal attacks, probably fewer are happy with refactoring. Having looked briefly at the incident with which you're concerned, though, it doesn't seem to fall into either category. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:26, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Trödel: Sorry you feel so strongly that you are going away. I have always stood against censorship, of any kind, in any place that I have worked. I drew a line in the sand, but meant no ill will toward you at any time. I simply will not allow my comments to be misrepresented. As for asking Mel for info -- you personally were not mentioned, but were referred to as a responsible user (see his talk page) -- I just asked for information where I would find policy for my future reference. So -- it wasn't personal, just a button of mine that won't be pushed. In fact, if you had made any kind of edit statement in the first place, I would have just shaken my head, and gone on with the work. But, without one, the action felt sneaky and I went to hyperalert. Censorship is a big issue to me. So, I apologize, if you feel I overreacted -- and you are welcome to call me a dick if you would like. Think about coming back -- I for one would welcome you. WBardwin 20:06, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Apology

Thank you for your apology - I very much appreciate it. I noticed and knew how you referred to me in your note to Mel - the problem was, knowing your characterization of me, his answer is that it (the deletion) is totally inappropriate. I know I over-reacted as well - writing what happend has helped me get beyond it - I should be on for a couple more hours cleaning up some things I have left undone, etc.

As to censorship - that is one of the poppycocks (IMHO) of your whole position 1) it isn't censored since it is in the history, 2) you have not restored it. It is more just pride and self-righteousness (not in a religious sense, but in the modern secular sense that all voices, all debates must be heard regardless of their value or validity).

As to not being personal - the claim that it is not personal doesn't change the nature of the charge against me that I was censoring comments and although your strong reaction may be rooted in something else that is totally unrelated to me, it still felt personal. Trödel|talk 20:16, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad you saw my note, and the note I left Mel. As to restoring the material -- you are welcome to do it if you would like. If you do, I'll remove some/all of my comments. As I clearly indicated, I do not intend to change others actions or comments on talk pages. I may clarify my own writing (with caution), shuffle things around for clarity, or summarize a discussion for achiving. Those are permissable as I understand Wiki policies and they suit my view of the respect due to other editors. I do respect you, and always have, and would probably have responded as firmly with anyone else. Make your absence a vacation -- we do need you here. WBardwin 20:27, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am fine with deleting the entire thing - it is moot since all the material being complained about is a copyvio - I would have deleted the entire discussion when I marked it a copyvio but for our disagreement. Trödel|talk 21:38, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

RS Presidents

I think R.S. President succession boxes would be very appropriate. As always, it's a matter of whether there is enough time to put into it. If you would like to start, then by all means, go ahead. I'm not sure what a Brighamite is, but I can tell you the LDS church has a strong history of R.S. Presidents and we regard them very highly. Even at the local level, the R.S. President seems to be next to the Bishop in authority and leadership. Jgardner 15:48, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I can work on a couple of articles. We have Emma Smith (1) and Eliza R. Snow (2) to start with. If I'm not mistaken, you are a Brighamite too! That's what the Prairie Saints - (Reorg/C. of Christ) - originally called those who followed Brigham Young west. I don't think the Church of Christ ever used the name Relief Society or formally organized a women's auxilliary. But I don't know about the other offshoots. Will look for sources on our noble ladies. WBardwin 17:05, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I copied the apostles succession box onto the two existing articles for now. Perhaps a redesign later would be appropriate. WBardwin 17:32, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Since there's only ever one RS President at a time, then the succession box is preferable to the series box. I've already made the change. Oh, and I guess I am a Brighamite if the Brighamites accept Gordon B. Hinckley as the president of the church. Jgardner 17:39, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Pottery

So..............you're excluding us from the arts? Somehow, I didn't think the Wiki was so narrow minded. Please reconsider. We would like to be considered an art form here. If you take a look at the Pottery talk page, you will note that our small clay community is discussing a clay/ceramics tree for current and future articles. Many of them will be very strongly arts related. Comments welcome. WBardwin 05:50, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh not at all! My intent was to simplify categories. Category:Pottery is definitely in the art category, and the Pottery article is in the Pottery category.

The categorization tree for clay looks wonderful! Ceramic art and Pottery would work in Category:Art mediums. The schematic gives me an idea as to explaintion here...

The intent was rather than everything in the Visual arts category, to have a mediums category.

Visual arts
  ---Art mediums
    ---(everything before 'P')
    ---Painting
    ---Pottery
    ---(etc.)

--sparkit (talk) 06:06, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. It is so discouraging to have people consider clay just a handicraft. Is your group dealing with art history as well? It's a very important aspect of clay/ceramics that is weak in Wiki. I've been trying to deal with it a little, starting with some pottery/archaeology in the American Southwest. If you have ideas on our proposed subject tree, please chime in. Comments welcome. WBardwin 06:15, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Category sorting

Hi, I was posting on Frost Indri's talk page when I noticed that you had written something about how anoying it was that articles was sorted "straight up" by article name. Just wanted to say there actualy is a way to controll sorting in categories. Let's say you want to add the Terry Pratchett article to the imaginary (and very POV) category Cool writers, if you do the normal [[Category:Cool writers]] the article will be listed under "T" (usign article name), however if you use the so called "pipe trick" like so: [[Category:Cool writers|Pratchett, Terry]], it will sort acording to the text you supply, in this case last name, then first name. It can be quite handy, though sometimes confusing if "mis used" for example at some point someone added the Lost in Space article to the "fictional spacecraft" category like so [[Category:Fictional spacecraft|Jupiter II]], wich caused "Lost is Space" to appear under "J" on the fictional Spacecraft list (to make matters worse the article contained no actual info on the ship itself), wich was somewhat confusing IMHO (hopefully future versions of the Wikipedia will make the "sorting text" visible on the category page to reduce confution). Anyway hope that helps. --Sherool 1 July 2005 09:02 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. But it's not the category sorting that bothers me (I use the pipe method myself), but our index is appalling. The Wiki design, and the conventions that rose from it, make gathering useful information from the index very difficult for newby's and our random user. This is particularly true on biographies, where spelling and name usage of historical figures differ. If the user does not know the article's exact title, the information is unobtainable. It would be nice if the programmers would consider an easy way to flag surnames and use a "Soundex" sorting system for English pronunciation to compensate for spelling problems. But that seems an unlikely priority. WBardwin 1 July 2005 17:27 (UTC)

Question About Infection

Hi I haven't really looked at all the information (mainly because of time constraints)about the subject, but I really did not find to my satisfaction a clear answer about the Massachusets incedent of the giving of contaminated blankets to Native Americans. Could the colonist really have known that long ago that a blanket could actually transmit the disease? And how would they deliver the blankets without intentionally or unintentionally infecting themselves? The link between micro organisms and disease was not made clear until Pasteur in the 1800's was it not? I would think that at the time, they would have had no idea that the blankets contained the disease. If you can help answer my question I would appreciate it. You can e-mail me at subphreeky@yahoo.com. Sorry about mispellings or intruding, or my own ignorance about the matter. Thanks. Subphreeky 18 July 2005

Human understanding of the causes and spread of disease, including smallpox, developed erratically and was often based on practical observation. The technological confirmation of micro-organisms - by Pasteur and others - was a conclusion of a long line of speculation and experiments with public health. The burning of bedding and clothing used by persons infected with smallpox, plague and other epidemic diseases dates at least to the early and mid 1600's. This was also the time when public health measures, such as drains and sewers, protected water supplies and garbage control, began to be seen in European cities. Of course, these measures had been used earlier in other cultures, including China and the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman's were also amoung the first to use innoculation -- controlled infection with a live desease agent -- as a method to temper the devastation of smallpox. Wikipedia's resident expert on this particular incident is Kevin Myers. I asked him to join our discussion, and his reply is below. Hope the information helps. WBardwin 17:07, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

"I will try to inoculate the bastards with some blankets that may fall into their hands, and take care not to get the disease myself." -- Henry Bouquet, 13 July 1763.

I'm not sure to what degree people then understood how disease was spread, but they had some notion of it, as Bouquet's letter demonstrates. And by the time of Pontiac's War, inoculation against smallpox had been practiced among the upper class in England for nearly half a century. It was also common knowledge then that if one survived smallpox, you were then immune, so presumably whoever handled the blankets had already survived the disease. --Kevin Myers 04:19, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Muckrackers

I did report this at the categories page; apparently nothing happened. I'll try again. (I find the category peculiar in any case, but apparently it's a North American thing; here, "muckraker" is pejorative, and such a category would be very PoV and unaccaptable.) --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:47, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

In modern times, the term seems very POV. But there was a strong historic tradition of 19th century US journalists and activists proudly using the term -- raking up all the muck on the robber barons and corruption in government (---from my political point of view, we need them again). It would probably be more POV to use "emerging journalists" - but I will look for articles using the term and see how it has been defined in Wiki. Thanks for your help. WBardwin 18:03, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I checked the rules, and found that I was able to speedily move it — so I have done. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:08, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Looks like the journalists at Wikipedia still support the use of the term in a modern context. See Muckraker. WBardwin 06:55, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Archaic peoples

Archaeologists identify the first people in this area as hunter-gatherers named the Basketmakers.

Actually, they are named the Archaic peoples (2000-0B.C.E.). The Basketmakers came later (0-800 C.E.), then the Anasazi (800-1300 C.E.). --Viriditas | Talk 05:38, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Point taken -- the sentence should probably be altered a litte. Continuity is the question -- the identifiable material left by the people called archaic in the Pecos Classification system is common with most peoples in North America at the time. These people, or independent groups of people, moved in and out of many areas over long periods of time. Although the some of the archaic people were probably their ancestors, it is only with the Basketmakers that cultural continuity is apparent --they seemed to actually stay in the southwest and evolve culturally into the Pueblo material pattern. So what if we added "settled" or "permanent" as a descriptor? Comments welcome. WBardwin 05:44, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

That sounds great. This site for example, refers to the Archaic peoples in the following manner: The San Juan Basin has been occupied for over 10,000 years and the Chaco Canyon area for at least 8,000 years. These first Paleo-Indians and Archaic people were nomadic, following game and growing seasons, and left only evidence of fires and stone tools. A more credible reference is of course, needed. --Viriditas | Talk 05:49, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Went to grab a book off my shelves -- must be getting old, have to have a paper memory. Kendrick Frazier, in "People of Chaco" (p. 79-81) references the Pecos Classification system for the canyon, but noted that a variant classification system, the Chaco Branch, was created, partially due to the minimal evidence of Archaic people in the canyon itself. Basketmaker began in the Canyon about 100 BCE and was seen to be culturally evolving by about 500 CE. We might want a paragraph summarizing the Archaic presence in the region and the focus on Basketmaker in the canyon itself. WBardwin 05:57, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Navajo Nation

I'm afraid that your suspicions were correct — it's a copyright violation. I've had to blank the page and report the violation, but I'll try to keep an eye on it and make sure that it's dealt with quickly (if it's dragging, give me a nudge). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 06:34, 30 July 2005 (UTC)