User talk:Richwales/Archives/2011-10

GA nomination of White Horse Prophecy
(including material copied from User talk:ItsZippy)

Hi there, Richwales. I've reviewed your GA nomination of White Horse Prophecy, which can be found here. I've noted why the article failed on the review - there are only a few things which I think need to be fixed. Let me know if you have any questions on my review or need anything else. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 19:42, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi. Thanks for reviewing White Horse Prophecy.  I've [ added a mention in the lead] about the theological basis for the prophecy; could you take another look at the article and let me know if this change would satisfy that one portion of your concerns?  I'll also look for additional sources to address the other points you raised.   Rich wales (talk) 22:58, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I've also added some more sources (including some non-LDS sources), as well as additional info about defenders of the prophecy's authenticity. It's been frustrating trying to find additional non-LDS references to the prophecy (or the underlying theology), and I might or might not be able to find additional sources, though I do plan to keep trying.   Rich wales (talk) 06:19, 1 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, Richwales. I think the addition you have made to the lead is good, and would satisfy my concern there. I also think you've done a really good job in finding more reliable sources - I can imagine that they are not easy to come by, so good job. The one problem I still have would be the breadth of details. First, let me just say that I don't know a great deal about the White Horse Prophecy, os it may well be that what I'm after simply does not exist. However, I do think that the reaction to the prophecy from those not affiliated with the LDS (from other American politicians, or Christians from other denominations, for example) would help. I'm not sure, but I expect there would be criticism of the theological basis for the prophecy from other Christian figure; it might help if you could find some of those.


 * I think that is now my only area of concern (and, as I said, it may not be a large problem). If you can try to find reaction to the prophecy from non-LDS affiliated people, then I think this could then pass another GA nomination. Thanks for all the great work you've done on the article. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 10:42, 1 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks again for the feedback. It's very helpful for me to get reactions to this material from readers who are more distant from and less familiar with the subject than I am — I happen to be a believing member of the LDS Church, and although I can try hard to mentally step outside my background and consider this topic from a non-LDS perspective, it's obviously not always going to be easy.


 * I'm continuing to look for more (and more reliable) sources — including more secondary sources to supplement or replace some of the primary sources currently in the article.


 * The task of finding non-LDS reactions to the White Horse Prophecy is complicated by the fact that there are really two closely intertwined issues floating around here — the general question of whether Joseph Smith and other important LDS figures believed and taught that the US Constitution would "hang by a thread" (it's pretty much indisputable that this is the case) vs. the specific question of whether Joseph Smith said this in 1843 as part of the entire discourse reported in the account of Edwin Rushton and John Roberts (this is far less clear). Most outside commentators have contented themselves with talking about whether various Mormon politicians see themselves as potentially fulfilling a fabled role of saving the Constitution — and, indeed, several of the sources I'm currently citing in the "Interpretation" section are from non-LDS sources.


 * As for non-LDS theological criticism narrowly directed at the entire White Horse Prophecy in the Rushton/Roberts account, there doesn't seem to be much of that except for material from anti-Mormons (such as Sandra Tanner) whose goal is to set up the prophecy as a straw man — i.e., if Tanner can make a case that the complete White Horse Prophecy did authentically come from Joseph Smith, she can then point to various details in the Rushton/Roberts account which appear not to have occurred as predicted, and this (in her view) would bolster her position that Joseph Smith was a false prophet and that everything he claimed and taught was of the devil.


 * I'd be grateful for any other thoughts or observations you might have.  Rich wales (talk) 15:40, 1 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi again, Richwales. First let me say that I am impressed at your ability to write about this topic with a NPOV - not many people could write about something that they hold faith about in such a good way, so well done with that. I think everything you are continuing to do to the article is very good. As I've said before, the only thing that I think is missing is non-LDS interpretations. It could be, however, that these simply do not exist (or, if they do, reliable sources for them do not). If that turns out to be the case, then I think the article is now up to GA standard. I'd suggest you make one last search for non-LDS reaction and, if there is none, renominate. You've done a really good job on this, I'm impressed. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 12:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks. I'll do another round of searching for material and let you know what (if anything) I find.   Rich wales (talk) 15:04, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I've added some more material to the "Interpretation" section's opening paragraph (splitting it into two paragraphs now), and also some more to the subsection on Glenn Beck. I've managed to find some stuff in the past couple of days via ProQuest; unfortunately, most of the "sources" that can be had through Google searches fall basically into the category of self-published web sites, blogs, and wikis that are not reliable for Wikipedia's purposes.  You can see in [ this diff] what I've done to the article since you and I started discussing it.   Rich wales (talk) 16:55, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * What you've done looks really good. I appreciate the difficulty in finding reliable sources and expect there are very few - I'm impressed by what you've managed to find. I think that the current version is now much better and probably worth renominating as a GA. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 17:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, I'll go ahead and relist it. Thanks very, very much for your help.   Rich wales (talk) 17:48, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Page protection
Hi, Rich. I've just added to my response to your message. I'm posting here to let you know my initial response was lacking. Thanks  Tide  rolls  04:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the readership of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:42, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:1948 Arab–Israeli War
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:1948 Arab–Israeli War. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 07:31, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello
I just saw you c/e an article that I had worked. I was wondering whether you had the time to look at a small article Tamil Brahmi, that I have just finnished working on. Thanks Kanatonian (talk) 00:52, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the readership of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:11, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Peter Vidmar
[copied from Colejohnson66's talk page]

Hi. Your recent [ revision] to the Peter Vidmar article appears to have broken the infobox. Could you take a look? Thanks. Rich wales (talk) 04:57, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed :) --Cole Johnson (talk) 20:02, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

This is what I was explaining previously
An admirable effort, but the individual simply hops IPs and forges ahead.  Tide  rolls  23:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 02:06, 29 October 2011 (UTC)