User talk:Adkinsc1

Sanitizing? Mass Edits with no Edit Summaries?
Why are you sanitizing the Homosexuality and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints article? You have done a lot of edits, most without edit summaries, and have removed or reworded a lot of content to change the meanings presented in the article. Please stop. You cannot make such bold edits without a proper edit summary, and probably should not without discussing it on the talk page. Failure to do so, may result in the edits being reverted, especially since the edits may no longer conform to the premises in the citations given. Best, R OBERT M FROM LI  TALK/CNTRB 05:51, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Clarification: I'm not disputing your edits, I'm letting you know how such changes may be perceived by others when proper edit summaries are not included in the edit. R OBERT M FROM LI  TALK/CNTRB 05:55, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, I agree the article needs a lot of work. Here's my suggestions, which since this article is somewhat contentious (as many like it are), may help:
 * Always provide edit summaries: they dont have to be "books" of text... simple things like 'rewording "History" section' or 'fixing grammar in lede' will suffice
 * Use an tag (more info found here) on the article: To do this, simply put this at the very top of the page:   . You can add a comment to it to make it more explanatory like this:    (obviously substituting "Doing whatever" with an appropriate comment indicating what you are working on).
 * Remember to remove the tag when done, or when taking an extended break from working on the article
 * Be careful when changing text that refers to a citation/reference: This is crucial, as the text needs to state the same premise as the citation for it. So, when you re-word something, if you do a major reword, you may wish to check the reference to ensure you haven't changed the meaning from what the citation says. In some cases, this means keeping seemingly biased wording. For instance, if a citation is being used to portray someone else's criticism of a subject, it will obviously include or be discussing their bias - thus, when appropriate in the context of the article, so should the article. This is where maintaining a neutral point of view doesnt mean what most people think. In this case, it means; without inserting one's own point of view, that you (we/anyone) is accurately stating someone else's point of view accurately, whether their point of view is neutral or not. This is especially important when dealing with the (usually rare) quote in an article - text quoted from a source (person, book, website, etc) should never ever be changed. One can remove the quote if they can accurately summarize (in their own words) the premise, but one cannot ever change the text of an actual quote. And of course, one should never quote a snippet in a fashion where it's being used out of context. (I know you'd never do this, I just mention it because it's part and parcel to a fuller knowledge of this section).
 * Much of this stuff can be found in (or linked from) Wikipedia's Manual of Style, Wikipedia's Five Pillars and the links I've included above.
 * Let me know if you've got any questions. Best, Robert R OBERT M FROM LI  TALK/CNTRB 14:22, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * One major related note, and one clarification:
 * Try to engage other editors who've been involved on that page by starting a discussion on it's talk page: A simple note explaining your intent as you did to me and asking for others to help contribute in the article's overhaul should be fine.
 * Dont forget that using an   tag does not mean you can skip providing edit summaries: when people look at page revisions, or at RecentChanges, they don't see the underconstruction tag - they only see "Date Time -1,286 bytes Adkinsc1 (Section) edit summary" - so if there isn't an edit summary, they never know what's going on. Even on the most simple of my edits, I always provide an edit summary - you can never go wrong doing so (as long as the edit summary is accurate of course).
 * Best, R OBERT M FROM LI  TALK/CNTRB 14:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for your help! I'm going to work on this over the next few days. Adkinsc1 (talk) 23:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Impressive start and great summaries on the talk page! If you dont get any takers for the offer to help, dont get discouraged. Best, Rob R OBERT M FROM LI  TALK/CNTRB 03:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 03:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

familiarity with Wikipedia?
Adkinsc1, you seem to be catching on very quickly. I'm suspicious that you understand Wikipedia terminology like "forking" and "undue weight". It makes one suspicious you have had another account. If that's the case and you have explicitly retired your old account per WP:CLEANSTART, that's okay, though it'd be nice of you to indicate you are invoking CLEANSTART. If you are truly a new user, how did you so quickly read up on complicated concepts like these?

Feel free to send me an email if you'd rather not say so publicly. If that's the case, I'll revdelete this comment so others don't even see that it was asked. tedder (talk) 04:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Tedder--

Thanks for checking in. I have a combo web/legal background. So the ideas aren't really foreign. I've spent several hours trying to understand the POV concepts. RobertMfromLI pointed me to forking and undue weight. I'm glad that it looks like I'm cathching on... Anyway-- just yesterday I was making changes without even knowing to include edit summaries.

This is more "fun" than I thought it would be. I hope to dig in, learn more, and get involved.

Let me know if you have additional questions or concerns. Adkinsc1 (talk) 04:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Aha, that explains why you have a mastery of words and the concepts. Good work. It's just somewhat suspicious, so I'm glad to hear the reason! Cheers. tedder (talk) 05:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)