User talk:COGDEN/Archive 5

Complete randomness
I was looking for arguments in my efforts to ensure that we devote any kind of substantial thought to the effects, facts and implications before the current furious purge of fiction articles is brought to its conclusion, and found that you here made a routine message using longhand instead of masses of acronyms, thereby ensuring with a bit of extra work that the message would be easily legible and that little experience was necessary to follow it. So thanks for your courtesy. --Kiz o r  20:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. CO GDEN  20:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Mormonism and history merge proposal
Please weigh in on the merger proposal between History of the Latter Day Saint movement and Mormonism and history. I saw that you were a recent contributor of one of the pages in question, and thought you would be interested.--Descartes1979 (talk) 21:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

A difficult copyright case
I hope you have been well lately. I am looking copyright situation similar to what we discussed previously (in fact re-reading that discussion reminds me some of the questions I asked elsewhere were things I had already known!). This one is a Russian POW suicide note related to the Betrayal of the Cossacks. I have most of the issues clarified, but I was wondering what you thought about the last sentance ('Let the Americans and the whole world know that our death is the commencement of the struggle against the dictatorship of Stalin.) being consent to publication. Do you think such a remark should qualify as consent from the author(s)?-- Birgitte SB  18:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There is also a good deal of discussion on the issue at User_talk:Lupo. Including opinions about jusristiction that I didn't get into above because I found them to be solid.-- Birgitte SB  15:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I took a look at the source. I'll comment over on Lupo's page. CO GDEN  17:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments. I think it will remain a controversial case, but having controversial case with good information is much better than one with little or poor information.-- Birgitte SB  22:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Featured article review : Golden plates
Golden plates has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Serpent&#39;s Choice (talk) 19:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge Proposal - Angel Moroni
Please weigh in on the merger proposal between Angel Moroni and Moroni (prophet). You are receiving this notice since you were identified as a recent editor on one of those pages. Thanks! --Descartes1979 (talk) 07:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. CO GDEN  20:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Request for admin help
I see you are an admin that is involved in religion articles. Can I request some advice/help from you concerning a "dispute" with User:Fullstop? I feel that s/he has been uncivil in comments to me and s/he has been blanking and manually emptying some categories I recently created. See a discussion on my talk page here. The catgories are Category:Zoroastrians by nationality and its subcategories if you'd like to look at them. Without getting into the technicalities of the issue of nationality/status as a Zoroastrian, my position is simply that the editor should nominate the categories for WP:CFD if s/he has a problem with the existence of the categories or the way they are being applied. Is this not correct? I don't understand why the editor can't use the provided-for procedure. S/he sounds quite frustrated and it may be that most of that frustration results from past similar disputes the editor has been in, but I don't really appreciate him/her taking it out on me either. Do you have any advice for what I should do? Thank you very much. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I really don't have much to add here. I don't see any particular right or wrong way to do the categories. Maybe I'd suggest just letting the issue sit and cool for a while and coming back to it later. I would also listen carefully to what Fullstop has to say; s/he is a long-time editor whom I've worked with before, and usually has a lot of good ideas, and the more confrontational approach s/he took here is not typical. I think, after a cool-off period, the two of you might be able to have a more constructive, rational go at it. Also, if you wanted to do something now, you could always institute a WP:CFD yourself, with the goal of getting additional community input on the question. CO GDEN  02:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice — I will try that approach. It was advice I was more looking for rather than any "action" on your part. Best wishes. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Drive-by remark no. 4653-391(a)
I've just stumbled across the "no original research" RFC, and I want to tell you that your statement may be the most lucid scholarly writing I have ever seen on wikipedia. Normally, when confronted by a wall of diffs and dates (usually on an arbcom subpage), I reach for my mouse wheel almost immediately, but you were able to hold my attention. I hope that, in the future, that proceeding results in fewer people being dragged through the mud while discussing policy improvements. Xeriphas1994 (talk) 20:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the encouraging words. I think that whole issue got blown way out of proportion. It's unfortunate that so many people had to waste so much time on this that could have better been spent actually improving articles. CO GDEN  20:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar of Diligence
All the best, John Foxe (talk) 23:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. CO GDEN  23:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Once again I must express appreciation for your work, in this case the careful comparison of the Golden Plates with Noah's Ark.--John Foxe (talk) 11:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Mormonism and violence
I have nominated Mormonism and violence, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Mormonism and violence. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 20:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the notification. I've added my comment there. CO GDEN  07:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Talk: Temple garment
Someone is suggesting that one of the references you added to this article (Buerger, David John (2002), The Mysteries of Godliness: A History of Mormon Temple Worship) is unreliable and extremist. He doesn't seem to have actually read this source so perhaps you can clear up the issue easily with a simple explanation of what you know about the source.-- Birgitte SB  00:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look. Thanks. CO GDEN  01:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:Citation/authors/testing
A tag has been placed on Template:Citation/authors/testing requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (&lt;noinclude>&#123;{transclusionless}}&lt;/noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:Citation/patent/testing
A tag has been placed on Template:Citation/patent/testing requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (&lt;noinclude>&#123;{transclusionless}}&lt;/noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It can be deleted, or not--I have no preference. It's just a testing template. If any further testing is ever needed, it is easy enough to create another testing template. CO GDEN  18:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Shit happens
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Shit happens, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add  to the top of Shit happens. Neitherday (talk) 17:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the notice. CO GDEN  20:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Shit happens
I have nominated Shit happens, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Shit happens (2nd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Neitherday (talk) 19:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the notice. CO GDEN  20:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Shit happens
A tag has been placed on Shit happens, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add  on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself.

If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Mschilz20 (talk) 01:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I didn't actually create this article, by the way. I think I just added a link of some sort.  The article is pretty inane, but I have no opinion as to whether it should be deleted. CO GDEN  19:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Request for feedback
Hi, COGDEN, I want to ask you a favor which you should feel free to do in your own time or not do if you are uncomfortable with it.

I had a small dispute with User:Storm Rider, who I assume you are familiar with somewhat b/c you both seem to have been active in editing LDS pages. You may not be familiar with me, but I am relatively new on WP and have been involved in editing some LDS pages as well. If you could, would you review the interaction here and let me know if/how I am off base. I hold no animus towards Storm Rider but for some reason he seemed to really take offence at my comments, and I wondered: am I being a dick, or is he like this with a lot of users? If I'm being a dick, can you tell me so I won't be a dick anymore? I would appreciate it. Feel free to comment on my page or e-mail me; I don't see any need to prolong the dispute at Talk:Master Mahan unless you feel it's necessary to comment there. Thanks very much, Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * On the substantive issue, I agree with you: Storm's addition needs a reference for the statement "Joseph Smith is not known to have ever discouraged the Latter Day Saints from participating in Masonry", as does the phrase "this position seems to be contradicted by". Storm knows the policies and will probably eventually come around, if you are civil and flexible. I'd probably just let the tagged statement stand for a couple of weeks. This article probably shouldn't be a rehashing of everything that should be in Freemasonry and the Latter Day Saint movement, but if the statement about Smith's 1840s associates remains, the article should also mention that W.W. Phelps was an editor of an anti-Masonic newspaper in New York, and one of the founders of the New York anti-Masonic movement, and that Martin Harris was a member of a Nauvoo anti-Masonic vigilante group. But this all arguably gets outside the scope of the article. CO GDEN  01:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your input. My intuitive sense is that the article doesn't really need much on freemasonry at all because of the existence of the other article, but I can understand why an editor might feel defensive because of the statement by the Tanners that relates directly to "Master Mahan". I think I'll just let the article alone for a time, as you suggest. I've noticed with religion articles that there are definitely a class of editors who seem to take content disputes personally, or at least the disagreement gets easily turned into personal attacks or not-so-subtle mockery of other editors for what seems like nothing but a difference of opinion on a technical issue. I'm sure he's wary because no doubt he's had his share of run-ins with "anti-Mormon" edits/editors, but it would be nice to have some good faith assumed on my behalf too. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * If you get a chance, could you examine the changes User:Sanitycult would like to make to the article and perhaps comment on the talk page. Much of what he is proposing to excise is stuff that you added earlier, and I thought you did a great job of incorporating various material there. Sanity's convinced it's all "fringe theory" stuff that needs to be excluded. Thx again, Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * See also my comment here, if you get a chance. I note from your contributions that you've been away from WP, which I didn't realise before. That's OK; thx, Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, sorry. I've been too busy at work for quite some time. I'm afraid I won't be able to participate on this in the near future. CO GDEN  07:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Golden Plates
I notice you commented on this one after I closed it. I appreciate that you did try to work. The section you added is an improvement in terms of POV. But the entire article needs to be audited in the same way. It's hard to come up with an analogy, and the best I have is this: if Golden plates were a movie, our article would be a plot summary and little else. I would rewrite as much as possible, compressing the story and adding as much scholarship as you can. The bulk of it is not in any way critical. It is, literally, "Smith said..." for far too much of it.

As for "said" more generally, I realize it can be used as a qualifying term and things in this article require qualification. But it's used far too much. As a basic prose consideration, it should be reduced as much as possible. Marskell (talk) 20:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand what you are saying, but its hard for people who are unfamiliar with this field to understand just how disputed every single proposed fact or statement is. Also, there is little new research in this field, since all we have are what people said, and the only "research" is simply to summarize what people said. Therefore, it appears that this subject matter is simply inherently unfeaturable. Nobody could possible rewrite this in the way you suggest, removing the "saids", without violating WP:NPOV. CO GDEN  20:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Please consider taking the AGF Challenge
I would like to invite you to consider taking part in the AGF Challenge which has been proposed for use in the RfA process by User: Kim Bruning. You can answer in multiple choice format, or using essay answers, or anonymously. You can of course skip any parts of the Challenge you find objectionable or inadvisable.--Filll (talk) 14:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. It is a very interesting and instructive exercise. Good work.  I wonder if we can incorporate some examples like this into the policy pages. I think people learn more from actual cases than they do abstract theory. CO GDEN  05:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Succession crisis
Citations requests for details on the legal/social/organizational structure of the Church, found in the background section, are becoming an issue. I suspect your library on the topic is larger than mine. Could you take a look when you get an extra minute? Best wishes. WBardwin (talk) 00:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Abortion allegations of Smith's polygamous children at Talk:Joseph_Smith, Jr.
Please see the new section at Talk:Joseph_Smith, Jr.. Écrasez l&#39;infâme (talk) 19:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * FYI: Informal Mediation Requested: Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-07-07 Children of Joseph Smith, Jr.. Écrasez l&#39;infâme (talk) 16:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

John Williams Gunnison
Sir: in my efforts to improve Wiki coverage of US Western explorers, I came across John Williams Gunnison. I removed inflamatory language and POV from the article, also noting that sources are needed. As you have been involved in the work on the Utah War and Mountain Meadows massacre, perhaps you or other associated editors have material which might improve this article. Thank you. Just me! (talk) 02:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm not very familiar with Gunnison's history, so I'll defer to you. CO GDEN  08:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep it up on the BOM page...
I turned my attention to this page a little while back and ran into the "thou shalt not edit here" wall created by the page owners, Taivo and wanderer57, with a few smaller players too. If you want we can collaborate on this page...I am willing to stand up to these guys and I think they may have gotten the point that I won't be held from editing there, but maybe not. I tried to splice parts of your revision back into the lede...some of it stuck, but I also tried to add a few things I thought were missing but was severely blocked from adding a "13 milion follower" comment about the scope and reach of the book. My idea is that there should be a greater "BOM influence" section talking about the renaissance the BOM created and it's wide reaching effects connecting to the history of the LDS movements pages etc. Just let me know if there is anything I can help with...we've fought over worse on the Golden Plates page, so let's kick another bee's nest and try to reach at least GA status with this article again. Twunchy (talk) 22:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks. If there is a persistent problem, we can bring in peer reviewers, who I'm sure will see the obvious problems keeping this from GA status. CO GDEN  22:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I've begun inserting a few things but I'm no expert at the references...I have pulled them from the golden plates page, but they seem to be in shorthand within the text and I have no idea how to make 'em look perty and linked up like they are on the golden plates page...if you give me a few pointers I'll try to get better at it. Twunchy (talk) 20:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

PSTS Policy & Guidelines Proposal
Since you have been actively involved in past discussions regarding PSTS, please review, contribute, or comment on this proposed PSTS Policy & Guidelines.--SaraNoon (talk) 18:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Logo of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (1995).gif)
 Thanks for uploading Image:Logo of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (1995).gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice?

Anyways, the image has been replaced by an SVG version: Image:LDS Logo.svg. Just thought I'd give you a heads up. —Super Rad !  ☎  18:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. The file should be deleted, and I can probably just delete it myself. CO GDEN  19:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Template:Citation/patent Questions
Based purely on the fact that you are the earliest person listed on the Revision history of Template:Citation/patent, I assume that you are the author of the Citation/patent template. If so, I greatly appreciate the work that you have done and apologize for punishing competency by asking questions. However, I am trying to learn template scripting in general and selected the Citation/patent template due to some initial use. I asked a question at the template's talk page, but have not received any response. (I also have further analysis of the template's code on my home page.)  Accordingly, I am leaving this message at your home page in case you might be able to assist.--Rpclod (talk) 14:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I indeed started the template, but it's been a long time. I'm commenting on the template's talk page. CO GDEN  00:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

RFC at WP:NOR-notice
A concern was raised that the clause, "a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge" conflicts with WP:NPOV by placing a higher duty of care with primary sourced claims than secondary or tertiary sourced claims. An RFC has been initiated to stimulate wider input on the issue. Professor marginalia (talk) 18:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. CO GDEN  00:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

A good question for you...
On the BOM page I have run into a great question...that you might know about or have an idea of where to find the info. The question is "Who titled the Book of Mormon?" I have no clue! And I'm pretty sure I'm not the first person to ask such a question...hopefully. If you know, just head here here to put your 2 cents in. Twunchy (talk) 19:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Will do. CO GDEN  21:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Feeble attempt at new policy for Wikipedia
I'd love your input again for a new policy for Wikipedia regarding religious articles. Take a look at what I've started and lend me any input you wish. It's at Religion. Thanks, Twunchy (talk) 22:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the article is a good idea. I'll take a look. CO GDEN  17:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Invite
LDS Church work group

Hello. I noticed you've made edits to articles related to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and thought you might be interested in participating in the LDS Church work group, part of the Latter Day Saint movement WikiProject. The group aims to serve as a hub for collaboration on Church-related articles. You don't have to be a member of the Church to participate, and the only requirement for active membership is that you edit at least one Church-related article per month. Best wishes! —Eustress talk 02:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I joined. CO GDEN  03:02, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

You are orthodox
I had to laugh when I read this. I was not aware that you were perceived as an orthodox Latter-day Saint. As many disagreements as we have had over the years over your divergence from orthodoxy, it is comical to see those who are completely ignorant of LDS theology and teachings attempt to put you in an orthodox box. It really makes me laugh out loud.

Please understand that I do not wish to insult you. You have always appeared, IMHO, to edit from a historical standpoint and LDS Church teaching be damned. I honestly trust your knowledge of LDS history; you are by far the most knowledgeable editor on LDS history working on Wikipedia. Our disagreements in the past always revolve around your desire to actually cast off orthodoxy for the minutiae of history. Regardless, you have now joined the ranks of the orthodox. Be welcome! --Storm Rider  17:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I guess it's all relative.  Actually, I'm outwardly pretty orthodox, apart from voting Democratic. But I guess my philosophy with regard to LDS history is that what is taught in church and presented by missionaries is designed, for a very good reason, to be faith promoting, because that's their purpose.  But in academia, my view is that Smith's legacy is better served by just telling the whole story like any other history, warts and all, and trusting that the historical Smith is just as inspiring and fascinating, ultimately, as the Smith we hear about in church. CO GDEN  19:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It still makes me laugh to think that others are targeting you as the bad guy. They don't have a clue to how often you have been on the unorthodox side in history issues. Even Foxe is held to be a Mormon. Literally rolling on the ground over this. Regardless, I hope it makes you smile over how perception is 99% of reality. --Storm Rider  22:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know. It baffles me. I think people just don't understand the background, and don't really know what Mormons consider to be controversial, and don't understand the complexity of the story of Joseph Smith and the other witnesses. CO GDEN  23:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Speaking from a position of ignorance will always lead to problems. What irks me so much about the current situation is almost the complete disregard for the article as it currently reads. No one, with an iota of knowledge, would take the position being taken. It is wholly oblivious of facts, history, and existing conflicts. For some I get the impression that their critique is really about religion in general and for others, but not certain, I wonder if they just have an axe to grind. I do appreciate the way you have finally succeeded in engaging one of the editors in dicussion. I was pulling my hair out just trying to get him to tell me exactly what he wanted. I am not sure they want to do the actual work of editing, rather then just expressing an overall impression that the article just does not meet their perspective.
 * COgden, I am glad to hear you think of yourself as orthodox. You add a lot to the articles even though we are often on opposite sides of the discussion. Voting Democratic is not unique in the Church so that would not be something I would look at. I agree that all LDS articles should simply report facts and I am not opposed to anything that is covered by mainstream authors regardless of position. I do think we have included a little too much fringe at times, but even then it has not motivated me to delete it from the articles or even mark it as such. I am more focused on the outright misrepresentation of fact, distortion of references, and vandalism. I hope you continue to be successful working with them. Hopefully it will result in an improved article. Cheers.--Storm Rider  01:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As do I. I totally agree as to the neutrality of these articles.  Golden plates seems to be held to a higher standard than any other featured article, and we must give the audience no credit. There is no doubt that the article is not pro-LDS under the standards of WP:NPOV, but that is not considered enough. But I think we need to go through this exercise if we want to get the golden plates article featured again, and ultimately maybe we can improve the article without disrespecting the faith. CO GDEN  01:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

You have probably read...
this. http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/transcript-of-the-mountain-meadows-massacre-panel-at-uvu-turley-and-bagley-and-cuch-oh-my/ Right? :^)  ↜Just me, here, now …  01:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * No, actually, I wasn't aware of it. Thanks for pointing it out. Very interesting. CO GDEN  16:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Mormon Corridor
As you are known as someone with both an interest in Mormon history and a familiarity with of published academic research in that area, I'd like to invite you to the discussion at Talk:Mormon Corridor. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 23:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll take a look. Thanks. CO GDEN  06:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Nihon Ōdai Ichiran
I noticed your name amongst those contributing at Talk:Primary source.

Will you take a look at what I've pulled together at Primary source -- see here?

What do you think? I wonder if you'd be willing to suggest how this analysis might be improved?

Perhaps you may want to argue that using Nihon Ōdai Ichiran is not helpful as a strategy for illustrating the differences among primary, secondary and tertiary sources? --Tenmei (talk) 00:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing it out. I think it's a good example, but to ensure complaince with WP:V and WP:NOR, there ought to be some other source that explicitly says that Nihon Ōdai Ichiran is a primary source, that Annales des empereurs du japon is a secondary source, and that an encyclopedia article about it is a secondary or tertiary source.  I think the classification of sources in the example is true and valid, but I think there ought to be supported by citations that actually make those characterizations. CO GDEN  18:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Aha -- thanks. I will look for citations, as you suggest.  More importantly, I now begin to understand that I've misunderstood the fine-tuning WP:NOR encourages us to notice.  Thanks for the helpful feedback. --Tenmei (talk) 19:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Request
Hi COGDEN,

I just barely know "of" you from your Latter Day Saint-related editing. I know you're an administrator and am wondering if you would be willing to review an administrative action I recently took. If you don't have time I understand, but if you could it would be helpful to me.

I blocked an editor who is on an arbcom-imposed editing restriction. Links to pretty much everything relevant can be found here, where I left some reasons on his talk page. My main concern is that the editor has stated that I have a clear conflict of interest in blocking him. The reason for that would be that I have participated in the deletion review discussion where his comments in question were made, and my opinions conflicted with his. The comments he was blocked for were directed at another editor, and at the time of blocking, I didn't consider myself the target of his attack.

Anyway, I'd appreciate it if you could simply review what I have done. If what I did was inappropriate, you could unblock the user, and then either re-block him or leave him unblocked as you see fit. Thanks for your help, if you can give it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the blocking is justified. I'll just put a comment on the user's talk page. CO GDEN  19:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your effort in this regard. I know how pesky these types of requests can be, but they do serve a valuable purpose, I think. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. Glad to help. CO GDEN  22:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Adam-God
See my inquiry here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Got it. Thanks. CO GDEN  05:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Holy Spirit
COgden, I know you have recently edited the Holy Spirit article. I have a degree of discomfort with Carlude's edits; though I have left with with little editing. The Holy Ghost is a spirit son of God the Father is stated. The problem is the the Holy Spirit is eternal, without beginning or end, just as it is with Jesus. When LDS speak of the Son of God in Jesus or discuss the Holy Spirit (the few times we ever discuss where did he come from), we do say they are sons of God the Father, but we do not mean that they are not eternal without beginning or end. Do you have any ideas how the article could concisely be edited and still retain the information that Carlude wants in the article?--Storm Rider  23:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe we can just say that the Holy Spirit is a son of the Father, but also co-eternal with the Father in the same way that Jesus is co-eternal with the Father. If we say that, though, we might also have to say that all humanity is co-eternal with the Father too. I think that's too much detail. maybe we can just say that the H.S. is "a co-eternal son of God the Father".CO GDEN  00:20, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I think we can limit the discussion the Godhead and address the co-eternal nature of the Holy Spirit, Son, and Father. I will seek references and then edit. Thanks.--Storm <font color="1C39BB">Rider  06:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Mormonism and polygamy
See this rename proposal that I made to match the category name to the article you recently renamed. I didn't tell you about it earlier because I didn't want to risk being accused of canvassing. But now that it looks like the rename won't go forward (thanks to some entertaining insight from some users who are obviously not too familiar with the Latter Day Saint movement), I thought I'd let you know about it. Maybe you can at least make a comment that could demonstrate that I'm not completely loopy. Ultimately, I suppose either name works. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I added some comments. CO GDEN  21:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal
There is a proposed merge that I think would interest you at Talk:Limited geography model. I am posting this notice because I saw that you were a recent editor at one of the pages listed below: --Descartes1979 (talk) 17:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Limited geography model
 * Proposed Book of Mormon geographical setting
 * Archaeology and the Book of Mormon
 * Thanks for letting me know. I added some comments. CO GDEN  22:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Mormonism and violence
You may be interested in some recent additions at Mormonism_and_violence. I've tried to clean up the section a bit but I don't know enough about the topic to do it justice. I'm not sure that most of the information there is appropriate, as it doesn't really qualify as "violence" as such. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. Personally, I think the info about Packer's pamphlet should stay, but I'm not sure that the BYU aversion therapy really counts as "violence" because the participants were at least nominally volunteers. Also, I think the link between the LDS support for Prop. 8 and the rise in violence is too tenuous a connection, unless there is some source directly linking the LDS with the violence. I do think there are some sources (possibly Quinn) that might make the argument that there is a connection between LDS doctrine and violence against LGBT people. CO GDEN  00:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Oliver Cowdery photograph, c. 1848.jpg missing description details
Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:Oliver Cowdery photograph, c. 1848.jpg is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. CO GDEN  01:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Template:Harvard reference
Hi. Could you please #redirect the deprecated Template:Harvard reference to Template:Citation? As you know, :) the parameters of the former are recognized by the latter, so a simple redirect (rather than calling Citation/xxxx) would work fine. (ps: {Harvard reference} is actually calling the sandbox. Ouch.) -- Fullstop (talk) 13:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC) pps: I'm very glad to see that you are still active, and that the silly games haven't driven you away. Be well.
 * Harvard Reference does accept a few parameters that Citation does not, such as capitalized Periodical and Journal. So changing it to a redirect might cause some of the articles to have have problems. I'm surprised that there are so many articles still linking to that template. I wonder if there is some sort of automated way to replace all references to Harvard References to Citation.


 * Yes, I'm still editing every so often. Thanks for the encouragement.  Mostly I've just been too busy with real life, but I manage to edit sometimes. CO GDEN  23:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Harvard reference
In this edit of 12 February 2007 you deprecated Harvard reference. Nevertheless this template is still very much in use. Are you sure the template should be tagged as deprecated? Debresser (talk) 08:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It is still in use, but it shouldn't be. It is obsolete and not being maintained, and is superseded by template:Citation. CO GDEN  16:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I see. Thank you. Debresser (talk) 18:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Request
Hello COGDEN. There is currently a discussion to get a title change in the "Criticism of the Latter Day Saint movement" article. Stormrider mentioned that you had an excellent understanding of church history, and I would very much appreciate your input on the talk page, especially under the section "Title", which discusses the current proposal. It is a somewhat long discussion, and I apologize if reading it is tedious, but your opinion would be valuable, especially with the level of controversy surrounding the topic. Thanks for your time. Sharpsr1990 (talk) 13:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. CO GDEN  08:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Deleting critical information
I thoroughly read your changes to the Criticism article. How about instead of deleting information that's critical of your church, you discuss it first. I don't see how you can attempt to cover up the argued illigitimacy of Joseph Smith because it's a very widely discussed topic. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 17:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You completely misunderstand the nature of these edits. There has been a discussion on the talk page about completely rewriting this article. There's no discussion of removing material critical to the movement. The intro is just a guideline for a more rational article, which still includes all the criticism, but limits it to pre-1844. CO GDEN  17:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * In my opinion you went way too far. Please continue this discussion under the new section on the Criticism page. Apparently, I'm not the only one who disagrees with your edit. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 17:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think you looked at my edit closely. If you'll take a look, I actually inserted more "critical" information about the church than I deleted. But it was more general and relevant to the article we are ultimately going to write. CO GDEN  17:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Well-deserved recognition

 * Thanks! CO GDEN  20:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

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

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Pentecostal Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

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

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. No objection to deletion. CO GDEN  03:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Category
Hi; I've nominated a LDS movement category for deletion here. I really don't expect that it's going to get much input at CFD given its obscure nature, and you're the only user I could think of who I thought may even have a clue what this topic is about. Would you consider taking a look and seeing what you think? I don't want this to be seen as a canvass, so let me just be clear that I'd be just as happy if you told me my rationale for deletion is off base than if you agreed that it should be deleted. It just seems like a weird category to me, and want it deleted if it's just a made up thing. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree as to the category. I'll leave a comment there.  Thanks. CO GDEN  02:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

CHI
Re ; is the internet version referred to here the official 2006 version of the handbook? I've seen several internet copies but they are all old 1998 versions. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Never mind—I did an internet search. Duh. I just hadn't searched for it for a number of months. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, somebody posted a copy of the 2006 version to wikileaks several months ago. CO GDEN  18:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Joseph Smith, Jr. article
POV on the Joseph Smith, Jr. article seems to me to have swung a little to the left of center -- promoting a 'denigration' viewpoint -- in the last few months. Quotes, even from more neutral sources, have been selectively used and many of Smith's accomplishments downplayed and/or eliminated. Would you agree? Should some effort be made to restore a better balance? The LDS project page is noticably inactive, but I can help at intervals over the next couple of weeks. WBardwin (talk) 03:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't necessarily agree, in general, although there may be some specific instances of this. I think, for example, that the introduction is fairly balanced. It covers both Smith's major successes (publishing the Book of Mormon, establishing a church, building the Kirtland temple, establishing Nauvoo, introducing new doctrines, his legacy of many denominations) and his most significant failures (failure to establish Zion in Missouri, financial scandal and church's collapse in Kirtland, his mishandling of the Expositor incident and assassination). I think these are pretty well in proportion to the significance of these events in the literature, and the amount of time and energy they consumed in Smith's life. There are only four sentence in the intro discussing his failures, and four sentences discuss his significance, successes, and legacy. Likewise, I think the Early Years section pretty much just hits the most prominent points that are found in all the prominent Smith biographies, with some relevant context. As to the remainder of the article, I haven't looked at it quite as closely yet, but I'll try to make improvements. CO GDEN  20:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Harvard reference
Template:Harvard reference has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I agree with deletion assuming we can redirect all the references to Citation. CO GDEN  07:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Joseph Smith Jr
Thank you for addressing the issues on the lead paragraph, considering I was having difficulty in agreeing with the changes to the other editors. I think I am satisfied with that area of the article now, later I'll post some points about the "early life" section of the article on the talkpage, regards. Routerone (talk) 21:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

moving large text
Hi Cogden. When you move text in an article, please try not to cut it in one edit, then paste it in the next. (like this: cut, paste) Instead, just edit the whole article.

With disputed articles, it makes it more difficult to gauge the intent, and makes the edits appear more controversial than they need to be in watchlists. Thanks, tedder (talk) 06:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry. Since these were large changes, I didn't want to revise the entire article all at once and risk an edit conflict. CO GDEN  07:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

LDS Questions
I’m a newer editor on Wikipedia and I’ve seen many of your posts on the article discussion pages. As such, where can I connect with other LDS members (either on Wikipedia or off-site) and discuss various points of inquiry? Or can I create my own forum on my personal talk page? I would like to intelligently engage many academic / theological questions but most can’t be relevantly addressed on the talk pages – the discussion always leads to off-article conversation. Please let me know. Thanks HBCALI (talk) 17:05, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Welcome. There is a project page, WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement that sounds like what you are talking about, as well as WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement/The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints work group which is specific to LDS Church issues. These haven't had a lot of activity recently, however. Most of the discussion takes place on individual talk pages. But I think a lot of people have these project pages on their watch lists, and if a discussion there is struck up, many might be drawn in. CO GDEN  20:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Propsoal To Promote wp:quote
Hello, this is a friendly notification.

In the past, you supported promoting wp:quote into protocol. Currently, there is a discussion in an attempt to gather consensus to this ratification.

If you are interested, you can show your support there.

Thank you.174.3.110.108 (talk) 02:22, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Oliver Cowdery photograph, c. 1848.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Oliver Cowdery photograph, c. 1848.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted.  F ASTILYsock (T ALK ) 03:32, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. We have a better photograph of Cowdery now, and I'm thinking just to allow this one to be deleted.CO GDEN  18:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion
I like the work you are doing in List of sects in the Latter Day Saint movement. However, I do have one a very friendly suggestion that you are welcome to ignore is you choose. I was born into the LDS church so to me the words "Mainstream Mormonism" are natural and make since. However, there are a number of editors of this page that are ether part of another sect (like Community of Christ) or not LDS at all. In my opinion, they go to great lengths, using NPOV, against the Church being the "Mainstream" chruch. Especally since you listed the LDS church, I know they are going to argue that ALL sects claim to be “Mainstream”, or that your changes make the church out to be more important, etc. I would suspect that one or more of them is going to revert all your edits just to get ride of that one word "Mainstream" instead of trying to improve it and I would hate for that to happen.--ARTEST4ECHO talk 19:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You could be right, although I'm not aware of any Mormon fundamentalists arguing that they are the "mainstream" of current Mormon thought. That's not a reflection on whether or not they are right, just the reality, which they acknowledge, that they are a very small zig within a large faith that has zagged the other direction. But if you can think of a way to improve the terminology, I'm game. CO GDEN  21:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I totally agree and like what you did. I wasn't referring to "Mormon fundamentalists" per say, some of the "Josephite churches" (Community of Christ and Remnant Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints) argue that they are just as ""Mainstream" as the LDS church is.  Even though they only have a faction of the membership, but they are large enough to have alot if people "pulling" for them.--ARTEST4ECHO talk 21:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I just made an edit that may solve this. In any event, I was thinking that "mainstream Mormon" would be less problematic than "mainstream Latter Day Saint", but my last edit moots the issue. CO GDEN  22:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ya, I saw it before my last post. I agree that how it looks now should make everyone happy.  I liked it how it was anyway, but, like I said before, there is a group of editors of this page that are very spirited in keeping thing "NPOV" to the point where it almost goes against logic.  To me its a FACT that the LDS church is the biggest and the one everyone thinks of when someone says "mainstream", but it works against us, in that other don't want to hurt the "little guys" feelings by pointing it out.  It kind of like the "Everyone gets a trophy" sports we have now.  I'm sorry for the losing team, but they lost.  Why reward poor performance with the same award as good performance, if you get my idea.  I honestly was pleasantly surprised this morning when I found your edits still in tact.  I was betting that when I first logged in to find them all reverted anyway. --ARTEST4ECHO talk 12:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Well-deserved recognition II

 * Thanks! CO GDEN  20:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar
Just wanted to say "thanks so much" for your hard work, and that of your fellow editors, on this article. You guys have definitely taken it to a whole new level of usability, and this barnstar is well-deserved. Thanks again for all your hard work! - Ecjmartin (talk) 22:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. CO GDEN  02:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Opinion sought
I would appreciate your insight here. I've cleaned up the edit in question a bit but have let it stand for now. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look. CO GDEN  02:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

School of the Prophets
Hello, I saw that you wrote School of the Prophets

A two-day conference 22-23 Jan, 1833.

22 Speaking and praying in tounges.

23 Foundingday of the School of Prophets.

24 The School of Prophets begins. Zebedee Coltrin, qtd. in Journal History, Jan. 24, 1833. 90.231.11.211 (talk) 21:52, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. This is useful information, and I'll try to incorporate any new material next time I edit that article. Feel free to make changes yourself. CO GDEN  22:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

mw:Extension:HarvardReferences - MediaWiki extension that supports "Harvard" references
Thank you for your interest in Village pump (proposals). X-romix (talk) 09:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

PSTS
Hi, I am currently involved in a proposal for a guideline on primary, secondary and tertiary sources. I have just discovered that you were once involved in a similar proposal a while ago - either in contributing to it directly or in discussing it on its talk page. You may wish to get involved in the current proposal and I would encourage you to do so - even if you just want to point out where we have gone wrong! Yaris678 (talk) 23:54, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. CO GDEN  05:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Question
Are you Jeff Lindsay? You're both LDS and Chemical Engineers. Hope you are him... --Loofus5 (talk) 20:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No, sorry. CO GDEN  04:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Whatever happened to your proposal for the LDS opening paragraph?
In reading past discussions, I came across the following proposal you made for the first paragraph of the LDS Church article:

"The LDS Church teaches that it is a restoration of the original Christianity of Jesus. While sharing many common elements of Christian doctrine and practice, it is distinct from traditional Christianity because of its additional authority other than the Old and New Testaments."

It seemed to be well received by others in the discussion. It seems clearer and more balanced to me than the current wording: "is a restorationist Christian church" in that Mormons and non-Mormons would probably agree with your wording.

At this point I realize this general issue has been discussed to death, but I was curious to ask if you ever actually posted your wording. What became of this good (IMHO) solution? Scoopczar (talk) 18:36, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what happened. I'm not really committed to that wording. I like the first part, but the "because of its additional authority..." doesn't sound quite right. CO GDEN  06:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Church of Jesus Christ in Zion


The article Church of Jesus Christ in Zion has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Wp:Notability, WP:Verifiability, WP:SELFPUBLISH, WP:PEA and WP:SOURCES concerns. There seems to be no reliable sources for this church. The only current sources is a personal website. Additionally that website appears to be down. Article has had and  tags since June and October 2009 respectively, with no correction to issues. Additionally another editor pointed out a Wp:NPOV concern as found at Talk:NPOV Concern

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --ARTEST4ECHO talk 01:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with the deletion on notability grounds. CO GDEN  03:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Questions about the mormons
Hi cogden, I just created this account on wikipedia so I could ask you and a few other people some questions about Mormons. 1' Is the book of Abraham translation from the book of breathings? 2' Did John taylor try to hide polygamy? 3' Has reformed egyptian writing been found yet? 4' Were the cows and horses just other creatures in the book of Mormon? 5' Do you believe Smith was a prophet? Thanks and have a good day. Steve --Stevemccardell (talk) 16:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to answer, though I'm a lot more liberal and philosophical than a lot of other Mormons, so these answers are probably not the same ones that another Mormon might give you:


 * There are several theories about what the Book of Abraham is. We know that the papyrus that it was based upon included part of the Book of Breathings; however, the Book of Abraham is not a translation of this Egyptian religious text in the literal sense. One explanation that I have a lot of respect for is that Joseph Smith used the Egyptian text as inspiration to create an inspired story about the life of Abraham. Some Mormon scholars believe that the Book of Abraham text is somehow "hidden" or "coded" into the original papyrus, but I don't think there is any evidence of this. Some other Mormon scholars think there is a lost papyrus that still contains a literal translation, but again, there's no clear evidence of this.
 * I don't think John Taylor ever tried to hide polygamy. He practiced it proudly and openly, as did Brigham Young. Joseph Smith kept it a secret, but I think he intended to reveal the practice openly as soon as he could do so without fear of it invoking serious persecution. You probably know the story of how John Taylor's successor Wilford Woodruff permanently ended the practice in 1890 after it became clear that the practice would never be tolerated by American society.
 * Joseph Smith copied a series of characters onto a paper called the Anthon Transcript, which is the only example of what Smith called "Reformed Egyptian". Nobody has ever associated these characters with any known language.
 * Some Mormon scholars have tried to identify the "cattle" and "horses" in the Book of Mormon with other animals, such as bison, tapirs, deer, or llamas. For me, this is not an important issue, as my interest in the Book of Mormon is as a scriptural, literary, and inspirational text. I don't read it for historical or archaeological value.
 * I do believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet. He was a flawed man, but there is something special and almost undefineable about him that sets him apart from any other religious leader. If anyone has that quality you would ascribe to a prophet, it would be Joseph Smith.


 * CO GDEN  21:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Questions about the LDS or Mormons
Hey I have a question. Is this article - Secret combination (Latter Day Saints) correct? Is this a valid entry for Wikipedia? LoveMonkey (talk) 15:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd say it's not a very good article as it now stands. Maybe it could be improved, or maybe it could be merged with some other article, like Mormonism and Freemasonry. CO GDEN  20:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

 * Thanks! CO GDEN  00:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

God in Mormonism
Would it be acceptable to replace the phrase "traditional Christianity" with the phrase "orthodox Christianity"? Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem with that is that "orthodox Christianity" is generally understood to mean Orthodox Christianity--the Christian tradition derived from the Eastern Roman Empire. CO GDEN  22:19, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Harvard citation/testing


Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Mhiji 02:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No objection to deletion. Thanks. CO GDEN  02:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Archaeology and the Book of Mormon for deletion
The article Archaeology and the Book of Mormon is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Archaeology and the Book of Mormon until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 01:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. CO GDEN  02:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

My compliments

 * I posted this on my talk page:
 * "I'm honored that Richard Bushman would take time to critique the Joseph Smith, Jr. article. He's both a fine scholar and a fine person. I'm even encouraged by his concluding comment that the article is "a picky piece that isn't inaccurate, but it sort of lacks depth."  Few encyclopedia articles exhibit depth—that's the nature of such articles—and way too many are inaccurate. It's great to have a senior LDS historian vouch for the essential accuracy of the piece.
 * Nevertheless, the author of the Deseret News article, Michael De Groote, implies that the Joseph Smith biography is basically mine, and he does not give proper credit to the dozens of folks who've worked on the article through the years, among whom CO GDEN  should definitely be named. I take my hat off to you all."--John Foxe (talk) 19:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and congratulations. I haven't got around to reading the article yet. CO GDEN  21:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Template:LDSproject
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement. 208.81.184.4 (talk) 17:07, 9 February 2011 (UTC) (Using )

FAIR is tracking your edits
Hey there - I ran across this on the Internet the other day - did you know that FAIR is tracking your wikipedia edits? I was a little perturbed on your behalf when I saw this. http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_Wikipedia/Editors --Descartes1979 (talk) 22:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks. I was aware of that. I wish the editors of the FAIR site would bring their issues here to Wikipedia, where they could help improve or influence the articles here. Somebody there obviously doesn't agree with my approach here, and I'm okay with that. But as a Mormon who has an interest in apologetics myself, I'm a bit embarrassed that they would so poorly represent the character of Mormon apologetics by creating what seems to amount to an "enemies list". CO GDEN  22:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Just saw this section, so I went and looked at who FAIR is, and that led me to an news article they are promoting, which incidentally mentions you. I think there is an issue that is overlooked by polemic people.  The news article says this:
 * "Two main factions battle for control of Mormon articles on Wikipedia. On one side are Mormons who want articles to leave room for belief. They want positive facts of history to be prominent. On the other side are people who do not believe in the LDS Church. They want negative aspects of history to take precedence."
 * http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700105517/Wiki-Wars-In-battle-to-define-beliefs-Mormons-and-foes-wage-battle-on-Wikipedia.html?pg=3
 * This "us against the world" attitude is a problem for reasonable and neutral approaches to articles. I doubt there are just two main factions. I could be wrong, but just because someone is Mormon doesn't mean they can't approach it critically, and just because they aren't Mormon doesn't mean they can't approach it reasonably.  Each person on Earth has a different perspective, and lumping people up to make a point that "they're all out to get us" is just silly (to me).  Wikipedia has a "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources" under the Wikipedia:Verifiability article.  Well, anyone claiming to have spoken with God and restoring Christianity to its proper place is making a pretty exceptional claim.  Wikipedia isn't about taking things on faith, its about getting sources.  So, I think it is fair for FAIR to want accuracy, but to expect anything more is probably not reasonable. -- Avanu (talk) 18:32, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I was interviewed for that article, but most of what I said wasn't included. I think it's way too simplistic to characterize the editors the way the reporter did. I, for example, am a Mormon, go to church every week, and even have a temple recommend, but on editing matters I usually agree more with User:John Foxe, an evangelical, than I do with a lot of Mormons. There are opinionated editors with an agenda on either side like the ones described in the article, but their edits don't usually stick around for very long before being challenged. I explained this to the reporter, but he told me that the editors decided to cut most of my comments from the final article. CO GDEN  21:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm being 'arbitrated'
I guess I am being 'arbitrated' again; this is getting to be routine, so I don't know when I will get back to you on that other. The last kangaroo court went 'their' way, so I guess it was time to ramp up the action; watch editors come out of the woodwork for some old fashioned swarming. <font face="raphael" color="green">Duke53 | Talk 08:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I post this completely unsolicited by Duke53. Though Duke53 has already been blocked the following needs to be stated for the record. Duke53 is merely being attacked by a group of Wikipedia Mormon apologist, who have targeted him and others linked here. The only statement in this link to provide any examples is BFizz. Without examples, those above are merely saying soap boxing about Duke53. Not being their friend is not a reason to block him. Furthermore, the examples provided by BFizz are rather weak. They are merely examples of it takes two to tango. Further still yet, Analyst has engaged in the same behavior in the examples provided by BFizz. Take for example ridicule of a user name linked here  As for a mistreating a new user, Alanyst and Stormrider team up against User:Thewayandthelight  and successfully ran this insightful editor off. Alanyst and Stormrider have a record of using wikipedia manipulation techniques to supress and censor facts from wikipedia, instead of incorporating them. Editors such as Duke53 have repeated frustrated them in this. Now they are merely manipulating wikipedia to censor the editor himself. All statements against Duke53 were from Mormon apologist wikipedians. Without a state from a even a centrist editor such as John Foxe, the block of Duke53 comes off as manipulation.Mormography (talk) 06:43, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Response at LDS article
I'd like you to review my response to the 'cooling off period'. Thank you. -- Avanu (talk) 03:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints#.22Are_Mormons_Christian.3F.22_question_closed_for_a_7_day_cooling-off_period
 * I don't mean to pass judgment on any editor, or to accuse anybody of being uncivil. More than anything, I think it's just the dynamics of the situation. While some of the discussion relates to specific matters of improving the article, the discussion has gone beyond the secondary sources, and beyond any consideration of WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV. It is what the ArbCom was referring to here. CO GDEN  04:34, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that at times, the discussion has slightly strayed, but that is probably the nature of any discussion between real people on Wikipedia. My characterization of the overall tone is that we have several editors who are coming to different, yet reasonable, conclusions about the source material, and in deference, are continuing to look for additional source material that is in line with what each considers valid and reliable.  Source material does not have to be of a neutral viewpoint itself to meet the other criteria, only our treatment of it within an article.  My impression is that original research has been policed and kept to a minimum by all parties involved.  The thing that puzzles me here is that while other discussions are permitted (like at the Libya article mentioned, or for a laugh, go look at the hyphen versus dash discussion at the Mexican-American War article), the discussion here was arbitrarily stopped.  While I agree that this might be an intractable subject, as long as editors remain civil, and debate is refocused continually on reliable sources, what's the problem?


 * My focus currently is the following discrete change:


 * From:
 * The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a restorationist Christian religion.
 * To (one of these two):
 * The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints views itself as a restorationist Christian religion.
 * The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a unique restorationist Christian religion.


 * My fellow editors disagree with such a change. So we discuss and debate. The issue I see is that a few rather uninvolved editors (at this time) who were not participating in the discussion decided for those who *were* participating that it wasn't a valid debate any longer.  To refer again to your complaints about Verifiability, Reliable Sources, Original Research, and Neutrality, the last contribution I made was from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism (here), which is widely accepted as a verifiable, reliable, and neutral source on Mormonism, that is embraced by independent scholars and LDS alike. So, what it looks like to this editor is that you guys just didn't like the discussion, and you have every right to feel that way, but I don't see how that is a useful reason to limit debate. Thanks and sorry for this being a tad lengthy. -- Avanu (talk) 04:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Avanu: While my POV is that "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a restorationist Christian religion", I acknowledge that there are Christian scholars that do not agree with that for certain "unique" reasons. Saying that, I will fully-whole-heartedly (is that even a word?) support "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a unique restorationist Christian religion".  I think we could change it to that, there shouldn't be any peacockery interpretation of that (at least I don't see any). – Ajltalk 05:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion would have been appropriate for the talk page, but as it turned out (and this may have been largely due some of the unregistered editors), the talk page has devolved into a debate about whether the LDS Church is Christian. CO GDEN  16:17, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Why would such a debate/discussion be wrong if that were in fact the topic? As long as we are reviewing reliable sources and civil, I can't see why even a discussion on that is inappropriate. The characterization that a discussion of that topic means that it 'devolved' is puzzling. -- Avanu (talk) 19:29, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between your comments, which focus on how to present the range of perspectives consistently with WP:NPOV and particularly WP:DUE, and the overall tenor of the discussion, which has focused on whether or not Mormons are Christian, a question that Wikipedia cannot answer. CO GDEN  20:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The current article lead states unequivocally that LDS is a Christian religion. -- Avanu (talk) 20:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Cogden, this is the sort of problem that we keep encountering in that article. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints&diff=422772524&oldid=422769989
 * An imminently reliable source, and a neutrally worded edit, but apparently not good enough. -- Avanu (talk) 23:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * And I totally agree with you that simply stating that the LDS Church is a "Christian religion" doesn't comply with WP:DUE. I'm hoping that after a cool-down period, the editors who are still interested will be willing to enter a productive discussion with reference to policy, without getting all offended on religious grounds. There are so many other neutrality problems with the existing article that I'm not worried that this one issue is not resolved for a few days. CO GDEN  00:05, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Argh
I'm am through attempting to reason with User:Entropy's 1 at Talk:Mormonism. The user is now repeatedly re-adding in the material they originally added about how JSJ was criticised by the Palmyra Reflector, etc. The user seems to have simply ignored what everyone said in the discussion. Yes, I violated 3RR in trying to work this out, and now Entropy is accusing me as being a person who sees no value in Mormonism, so I'm through trying. Perhaps you could do something there to help the situation .... Good Ol’factory (talk) 13:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. I'll take a look. CO GDEN  16:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

LDSaint
Hi! Hey, I believe Latter Day Saint is most properly is a disambiguation page. COgden, If you believe consensus still supports its remaining a redirect, do you think it advisable to file an AfD? Btw, curiously, it's never had one.--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 01:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I haven't thought about making the article a disambiguation page, but that's a great idea. I would imagine it would link at least to the following:
 * Latter Day Saint movement
 * The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
 * Mormons
 * Mormonism
 * Church of Christ (Latter Day Saints)
 * This was a merger with Latter Day Saint movement, rather than a straight deletion. An AfD request was not required. But I think it would make a good disambiguation page. CO GDEN  02:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Kul!--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 03:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Nauvoo, Illinois daguerreotype (1846).jpg needs authorship information.
Dear uploader:

The media file you uploaded as File:Nauvoo, Illinois daguerreotype (1846).jpg appears to be missing information as to its authorship (and or source), or if you did provide such information, it is confusing for others trying to make use of the image.

It would be appreciated if you would consider updating the file description page, to make the authorship of the media clearer.

Although some images may not need author information in obvious cases, (such where an applicable source is provided),authorship information aids users of the image, and helps ensure that appropriate credit is given (a requirement of some licenses).

If you created this media yourself, please consider explicitly including your user name, for which: will produce an appropriate expansion,

or the own template..

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:32, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll ask here.
Hey, COgden. I'm not getting a response at Joseph Smith Jr. Perhaps I could ask the question here as to whether you are indeed an active LDS member. I mean no disrespect if you are not, but it would help me understand better some of your positions which seem to contradict the current teachings of the leaders of the Church.-- Canad iandy   talk  14:54, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * No need to respond now, COgden. Your silence has told me what I need to know. I won't ask again. I didn't mean to belabor the issue, but wasn't getting an answer. Please know when I refer to you in the future as an 'inactive' Mormon it is not meant as a criticism. I believe most 'inactive' Mormons are, generally, very Christian people. It is only in identifying your context for the sake of POV which John Foxe seems to see is important (i.e. Mormon contributions are by default unreliable because of their motive or POV). He is the one who likes to argue, in essence, "COgden who is LDS helped with the present wording and agreed it is fair...".-- Canad iandy   talk  02:10, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * My silence over the last 12 hours is because I am busy with real life. Also, I haven't felt the need to respond because the issue is irrelevant, and your questions are inappropriately personal and offensive, at least on mainspace talk pages. Not that it matters, but I am a happy and active Mormon, and a weekly churchgoer with a calling. Please don't refer to me as an "inactive" Mormon. CO GDEN  05:21, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how you could find my questioning personal. I am assuming your birth name is not COgden. I know nothing about you as a person except, now, your membership in the LDS church (which I am sure you brought up before I got here). In fact there is no way for me to know even that is true (though I do assume you are telling the truth here). You are a completely anonymous person being asked a simple question about religious context by another totally anonymous person. No, my real name is not Canadiandy, though that would be cool. And that information is only being used to assist in understanding religious context. If I have offended, sorry, I think it's human nature to try to make sense out of why things are as they are. I'll try to make sense of this in some other way now. I am sure you realize that your unorthodox opinions (i.e. Joseph Smith translated the plates by magic) simply undermine the beliefs of the majority of other Latter-Day Saints. But obviously I have offended and so I will drop out of the article. You may not want to hear this, but I suspect in years to come you will look back at the work you've done here and not only resent the time lost, but also the damage you have done to the history of Joseph Smith. Looks to me like you're wasting a lot of good time breaking into prison. But seeing you are far more steeped in anti-Mormon research than me, I won't be able to compete with you and Foxe. So I'm done. You and Foxe win. I'm sure your LDS friends have told you (or wanted to tell you) often enough about how damaging your work is to the world's understanding of Joseph Smith so obviously nothing I say here will change your present course anyway. I'll sadly leave you to your own free will. I hope you will find happiness in other ways in the future.-- Canad iandy   talk  16:13, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not actually offended, but that doesn't make your actions less offensive. Would you walk up to an anonymous person and demand that they justify their Christianity? It's not socially acceptable behavior in real life, so why should it be on the internet?
 * I'm not "doing anything" to Joseph Smith's history. That history is what it is, and has been written by others far more qualified than I. I can't change the academic consensus of dozens of living and dead scholars. Speaking as a Mormon, I think it's better that people learn the Joseph Smith story in context, from an academic forum like Wikipedia, rather than from some anti-Mormon evangelical source. Of course, nobody is going to be converted to Mormonism by reading Wikipedia, but that's not the purpose of Wikipedia. Telling the faith-promoting version of the Joseph Smith story is an important job, but it is the job of missionaries and church instructors, not Wikipedia editors who are bound to write academically and forthrightly regardless of whether they like the academic perspective. CO GDEN  03:01, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't recall asking you to justify your Mormonism. I fully respect everyone's right to believe what they will. Of course I will question how you came to some of the very uncommon positions you have posted. I mean, seriously, have you never talked to some other LDS members about your belief that Joseph Smith practiced magic and had them ask if you were serious? And yes, people usually don't join the Church because of what they read on Wikipedia. But there are probably many who are in the early stages of investigating our doctrines who change their minds because of what they read here. If I was not of this faith, and I trusted Wikipedia as neutral and fair-minded, and then I read the bigoted tripe that is there now, I doubt I'd pursue the church any further. I'm just glad I can see through it, but I'm disturbed because there are likely many who don't. I sure wouldn't want to have to look them in the eyes in years to come and admit I was partly responsible for the article as it stands. It's your conscience, I'll leave you to it (and the article). She's all yours.-- Canad iandy   talk  01:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Andy, you realize that Wikipedia isn't about proving what you or I might believe, but what Reliable Sources show. As for religious figures having fallibility, I'm not sure what would be wrong if Joseph Smith did work as a diviner or practice magic, after all, Christian and Jewish history shows that David had another man sent to his death in battle to take his wife, Lot slept with his daughters, Moses killed a man, and Saul/Paul approved of persecuting many early Christians, just to name a few.  The idea that any person must be perfect before they come to a true faith in Christ is nothing but nonsense.  I don't believe in Mormonism, but I don't go out of my way to confront people in the street, and I have quite a few friends who are of that faith (LDS).  So, I don't know what you might think, but it doesn't sound like it is right. -- Avanu (talk) 03:42, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "bigoted tripe"? Here?  In the WP:LDS area?  I'm aghast, Andy.  Have you any exhibits?  Tom Haws (talk) 04:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Just a question (LDS vs. Mormon)
I just wanted to ask. . . it seems like you favor using terms like Mormon and Mormonism in your editing over terms and links like LDS, Latter-day Saint, LDS Church, Latter Day Saint Movement, and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I was wondering if there are reasons behind that and what they are. Was there a discussion on this a while back that I missed? Adjwilley (talk) 03:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I assume COGDEN prefers to use the most descriptive and appropriate term for any context. For example, if he sees an article that states "the LDS Church practiced polygamy", he would likely change that to reflect the true scope of polygamy in the LDS movement.  Does this make sense to you?  Tom Haws (talk) 04:24, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. Basically, LDS refers only to the LDS Church organization, which is composed of Mormons, but not all Mormons are LDS. The term Latter Day Saint movement is an academic term with a specific meaning that is useful in some contexts, but most of what is distinctive about Mormonism is not necessarily applicable to the Latter Day Saint movement, which includes the essentially-Protestant Community of Christ. CO GDEN  04:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. -- Adjwilley (talk) 18:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Yet more 'nontrinitarian' thoughts.
Hey there COgden. I don't want to bog down the discussion pages with this one, sorry if it bogs down yours. First, thanks for your input as it relates to the discussion on the term 'nontrinitarian.' I just stumbled across a link to past complaints which suggests in fact that 'nontrinitarian' might be a term initiated at Wikipedia. Either way I'd be interested in your research into whether the term 'nontrinitarian' as it relates to the Church is not WP original research that has gone on for so long it has formed some sort of erroneous WP precedence that will take a fair bit of work to fix. To paraphrase that great Latin sage Inigo Montoya, "[Wikipedia] keep[s] using that word. I don't think it means what [they] think it means."-- Canad iandy   talk  05:47, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's the case here. A search of Google Books shows 77 results from the 19th century and 1,130 results from the 20th century. Plus, it has meaning simply as a negation of trinitarian and trinitarianism. Nontrinitarian is not a concept distinct from simply the negation of trinitarianism. As it specifically relates to Mormonism, there are 102 hits in Google Scholar for "nontrinitarian Mormon". Many of these sources are sociology works. Admittedly, not all of these sources would be citable in Wikipedia, but at the same time, there are other sources that would be citable that aren't accessible by Google Scholar. There are even more sources linking Mormonism with trinitarianism in a negative way. So it's safe to say that the word nontrinitarian or non-trinitarian was not invented on Wikipedia, and that Wikipedia is not the first source to observe that Mormonism was not trinitarian. CO GDEN  06:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I followed your Google Books link and found a whole range of meanings for 'a' term 'nontrinitarian' but none I saw (except the first one which was WP itself) seemed to have the same connotation as what is being used here at WP. Most relate to a term more similar in meaning to "antitrinitarian" i.e. some professed Jewish religious "war" (their words not mine) or those opposed to those with a belief n the Trinity. Another identified it as believing Jesus is not God (sure doesn't apply to Mormons does it?). So my question is still whether 'nontrinitarian' as it is defined here is not original research.-- Canad iandy   talk  08:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Except for the rare military definition of the term, which has nothing to do with theology, all of what you described are examples of nontrinitarian theologies. To be classified as nontrinitarian, Mormonism doesn't have to agree with every other nontrinitarian theology. It just has to disagree with the trinitarianism that 95+% of all modern Christians believe in. Nontrinitarian is like the word Protestant. You can be a Protestant without agreeing with every other Protestant on matters of theology. CO GDEN  08:21, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * So in the end, not only is the theology of the Church entrenched as a simple confusing term, but you've confused the theology by a mere link to the term 'Mormon'. You may be appeasing the anti-Mormon crowd (Avanu and Foxe seem to hold you in the highest regard, ever wonder why?), but I can honestly say you do not speak for my faith. Would you please consider adding the disclaimer like the one at FAIRLDS; "COgden's editorial practices are not affiliated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. All research and opinions provided by him are his sole responsibility and should not be interpreted as official statements of LDS doctrine, belief or practice."-- Canad  iandy   talk  22:15, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know why anybody would think I speak on behalf of the LDS Church. As to nontrinitarian I don't see how that is a pro- versus anti- Mormon issue. Most Mormons, who know what trinitarianism is, will readily admit, sometimes gleefully, that it isn't us. CO GDEN  00:42, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe most members of the Church wouldn't like the term trinitarian as a descriptor of their theology, but they would be equally annoyed by your 'nontrinitarian' term. I would challenge you to ask 100 random Church members what one word would summarize their theology. I doubt you'd find one in 100 that would use the term 'nontrinitarian'. I'll end the discussion (you can have last word) and leave you to your work. I'm still disappointed.-- Canad iandy   talk  22:53, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Request
I would appreciate your input here if you have a few minutes. -- Adjwilley (talk) 01:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments. I appreciate your insight, especially since I am relatively new to Wikipedia and am not familiar with the historical dynamics of the article. -- Adjwilley (talk)  22:39, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to continue bugging you on your talk page. There is a discussion going on at the redirect Talk:Mormon where I think your input would be most helpful. -- Adjwilley (talk) 03:39, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikicite
After many years, some people are getting around to a practical wikicite implementation. If you are still interested, please take a look as the pages develop on meta. – SJ<font style="color:#f90;"> + 04:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm working on a a project that will interface well with this project. CO GDEN  05:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

White Horse Prophecy — GA potential?
Hi. Do you think White Horse Prophecy could realistically become a Good Article? What are your thoughts on this idea? Rich wales (talk · contribs) 04:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see why not. It probably a good working-over by a few different editors. CO GDEN  05:37, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I added a couple of sources just now (in the "Origins" section), and as best I can tell, I think it should be ready for a GA nomination as it now stands.  I also think that, assuming the article does make GA,  should share the credit, since he contributed about half of the current content during an editing spree on 6 Dec. 2010.   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 06:23, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I've added a little more material to the lead section (restatements of stuff already elsewhere in the article), in an effort to make the lead summarize all the main points, while (hopefully) also keeping it neutral.  Rich wales (talk · contribs) 14:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Help with citation templates on Homosexuality and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?
Your input would be welcome at Talk:Homosexuality and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 16:35, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I added some comments. CO GDEN  19:10, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have an additional issue I could use your assistance with there, when you have a chance. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 15:42, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Restorationism
Category:Restorationism, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:23, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. CO GDEN  18:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Policycontroversy
Template:Policycontroversy has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 15:14, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. CO GDEN  18:16, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

December 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States
--Kumioko (talk) 04:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

January 2012 Newsletter for WikiProject United States and supported projects
--Kumi-Taskbot (talk) 18:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Persian religions
Category:Persian religions, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:40, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. CO GDEN  19:50, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Harvard citation
Template:Harvard citation has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. CO GDEN  03:09, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Mormons Good Article review
The Mormon article is undergoing a GA review, and has been put on hold to deal with concerns. More details at Talk:Mormons/GA1. Your input would be valued. <font color="#8D38C9" size="2px">SilkTork  <font color="#347C2C">✔Tea time  14:49, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Query at Joseph Smith
I was hoping that I could get a specific opinion from you on the paragraph. If you'd prefer not to offer an opinion, that's ok, I just wanted to ask. ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I made some comments. CO GDEN  07:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview
Dear COGDEN,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, were it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:
 * Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
 * Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
 * All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
 * All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
 * The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 02:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to participate. I'll add myself to the list. CO GDEN  23:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

MSU Student Interview
Hello, my name is Howard Terry User:Terryhow. I seen you were going to be one of the few I will be interviewing. If you may, can we set up a day and time that's free for you?

Sure. Why don't you send me an email (via the "E-mail this user" tab to the left), and let me know generally what times you are generally available, and whether you would like to do it by Skype or some other medium. CO GDEN  22:15, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok. I cant seem to figure out where the E-mail this user tab, and if you want I can email you the interview to make more convenient for you.


 * I can do it live or by email. Whichever you think is best. The "E-mail this user" link is on the left side of the page, under "Toolbox". It's down in the list that begins "Main page," "Contents," "Featured content," etc. CO GDEN  17:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Live will be best, since that's what I have to do. For some reason "E-mail this user" is not under my toolbar. If you would, can you email me instead at terryhow@msu.edu. I would really appreciate it.
 * I just sent you an email. CO GDEN  20:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

AfD discussion
There's an AfD discussion here that I thought you might be interested in. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:15, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

broken link
the link to "edit summary" appears down. Rogerdpack (talk) 03:40, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Seems to be working as far as I can tell. CO GDEN  03:52, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
~Adjwilley (talk) 19:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll take a look. Thanks. CO GDEN  22:17, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (LDS Church)
Could you take a look at the current state of Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (LDS Church)? One of the things I'm interested to get your feedback on specifically is the references that have been recently added to the article to deal with the issues recently discussed at Talk:Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (LDS Church). It now seems to have a good representation of the academic work available on the topic, but given your expertise in LDS Church history & Mormon Studies, I'd like to see what you think. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 15:38, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll take a look. Thanks. CO GDEN  22:17, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Kolob
Editor 208.81.184.4 has suggested you may be a good person, because this user was taught about internal linking by you, to weigh in at Talk:The_Well-Tuned_Piano (presumably this user also thinks you may agree with them). The IP made up a guideline and when pressed has supported it with generic examples that may or may not be a stretch. We would appreciate your opinion, and if you agree with the IP, I would appreciate the creation of this guideline. Hyacinth (talk) 01:05, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll take a look. CO GDEN  08:38, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Logo of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (pre-1995).png missing description details
Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as: is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.
 * File:Logo of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (pre-1995).png

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot (error?) 01:29, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * For reference: this has been addressed. CO GDEN  09:16, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Joseph Smith - FAC
Hello COGDEN,

I have put the article on Joseph Smith up as a nominee for Featured Article Status! I think the article has come a long way, and has a very good chance of being featured this time around. I would personally appreciate it if you took a moment to review the article and vote for it (or against it, I suppose) at it's FAC.

Thanks! --Trevdna (talk) 19:53, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. CO GDEN  23:56, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox Mormons
Template:Infobox Mormons has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. eh bien mon prince (talk) 23:12, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox LDS Church
Template:Infobox LDS Church has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:24, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I commented. CO GDEN  02:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment
Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
I need some help. User:Beyond My Ken has just reverted 30 insistence where pages have incorrectly used the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints when "THE" is per MOS:LDS, "The" is part of the Name and capitalized. I could uses some help convincing him he is wrong.ARTEST4ECHO (talk)
 * The discussion is now here--ARTEST4ECHO (talk) 14:52, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Just added a comment. I agree with you. CO GDEN  04:10, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

[The] Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
Hello; because you commented in this discussion, I thought you might be interested in participating in this discussion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:12, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Talk:Mountain Meadows massacre/References
Talk:Mountain Meadows massacre/References, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Mountain Meadows massacre/References and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Talk:Mountain Meadows massacre/References during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 20:02, 21 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I noted on the deletion page that I agree with the deletion. CO GDEN  23:11, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Early life of Joseph Smith
I have nominated Early life of Joseph Smith for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. DrKiernan (talk) 16:32, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity
Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 00:30, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. CO GDEN  07:43, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Elizabeth Ann Whitney for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Elizabeth Ann Whitney is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Elizabeth Ann Whitney until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.  DGG ( talk ) 20:52, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Category:Portrayals of Mormons in popular media has been nominated for discussion
Category:Portrayals of Mormons in popular media, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:53, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins
Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:32, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers
Hi.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins) .MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news
 * A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
 * Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
 * Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news
 * When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
 * Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
 * The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration
 * The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries
 * JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Citation/core/testing
Template:Citation/core/testing has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:17, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

WikiCite :)
A distant hello -- WikiCite is real and getting close to capturing a data-page for every cited [scholarly] article; a start at the original Wikicat/Wikicite idea. Just thought you should know. Warmly, – SJ + 21:04, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know! CO GDEN  07:51, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circular
<div class="notice" style="background:#fff1d2; border:1px solid #886644; padding:0.5em; margin:0.5em auto; min-height:40px; line-height:130.7%; font-weight: 130.7%;"> <span style="color:#5871C6;cursor:pointer" class="mw-customtoggle-ArbCom_2019_special_circular"> <div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-ArbCom_2019_special_circular" style="display:none"> <div style="border-style: dotted; border-color: #886644; border-width: 0 3px 3px 3px; padding: 0 0.5em 0.5em 0.5em;">

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:17, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)
ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

2019 US Banknote Contest
Sent by ZLEA at 23:30, 19 October 2019 (UTC) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk)

Category:Latter Day Saint doctrines, beliefs, and practices has been nominated for splitting
Category:Latter Day Saint doctrines, beliefs, and practices has been nominated for splitting. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:52, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity
Established policy provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have not made any edits or logged actions in the preceding twelve months. Because you have been inactive, your administrative permissions will be removed&#32;if you do not return to activity within the next month.

Inactive administrators are encouraged to rejoin the project in earnest rather than to make token edits to avoid loss of administrative permissions. Resources and support for reengaging with the project are available at WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators. If you do not intend to rejoin the project in the foreseeable future, please consider voluntarily resigning your administrative permissions by making a request at the bureaucrats' noticeboard.

Thank you for your past contributions to the project. —&thinsp;JJMC89 bot 00:04, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Church of Jesus Christ in Zion restoration
I've been working on restoring the church of Jesus Christ in Zion page and saw a lot of your work on it previously. I also saw you had personal connections and I was wanting to discuss the church in more detail in private, as almost any source of it has been completely removed. Fishmr (talk) 03:52, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Would you be willing to email me? I have many questions about your previous contacts and I promise to keep any sensetive information confidential. I am wanting to know more about the church mainly due to academic reasons and as I grew up in Gallatin, near where Roger has done a lot of stuff for the church. Fishmr (talk) 05:36, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Latter Day Saint movement


The article Latter Day Saint movement has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Persistent and continuing vandalism"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Editor2020 (talk) 20:58, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Administrators will no longer be autopatrolled
A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:05, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Citation/testing
Template:Citation/testing has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Q28 (talk) 00:27, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

How we will see unregistered users
Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:12, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

New administrator activity requirement
22:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity
Established policy provides for the removal of the administrative permissions of users who have made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period. Your administrative permissions will be removed&#32;if you do not return to the required activity level before the beginning of January 2023.

Inactive administrators are encouraged to engage with the project in earnest rather than to make token edits to avoid loss of administrative permissions. Resources and support for re-engaging with the project are available at WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators. If you do not intend to re-engage with the project in the foreseeable future, please consider voluntarily resigning your administrative permissions by making a request at the bureaucrats' noticeboard.

Thank you for your past contributions to the project. —&thinsp;JJMC89 bot 08:45, 1 October 2022 (UTC)