User talk:WBardwin

Hello Wikipedia!
''I logged into the system on 17 February 2005, having worked as an "anonymous" for the previous six weeks or so. During that time, I often signed notes and edits with "-W." While the time I have been able to devote to Wikipedia has varied over the years, I made my 5,000th edit on August 28th, 2005 and passed 20,000 edits in January 2010. Please note the archives listed below. Courteous comments on recent edits are welcome on the discussion page. And, please sign your posts. Thank you.''     WBardwin

Archives/Storage

 * User:WBardwin/Archive 8 (January - December 2009)
 * User:WBardwin/Archive 7 (January - December 2008)
 * User:WBardwin/Archive 6 (July-Dec 2007)
 * User:WBardwin/Archive 5 (Jan-June 2007)
 * User:WBardwin/Archive 4 (July-Dec 2006)
 * User:WBardwin/Archive 3 (Jan-June 2006)
 * User:WBardwin/Archive 2 (Aug-Dec 2005)
 * User:WBardwin/Archive 1 (Jan-July 2005)


 * User:WBardwin/AOL Block Collection History on AOL/IP related blocks.

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
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. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 00:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

User page link question
On your main userpage you are linking to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, which currently is redirecting to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; did you intend to use the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (the link to the dab page for several of the organizations in the Latter Day Saint movement) instead? -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 15:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Why do you want to know? I find both the question, and your change on my Sandbox page, intrusive.  WBardwin (talk) 03:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry if I have given offense; it appears I worded my previous question here very poorly; please feel free to delete this entire conversation if you feel my line of inquiry is inappropriate. I was trying to understand if your user page meant to describe the group whose current head is Thomas S. Monson (which commonly is assigned "LDS Church" as a short form of their name), or conversely some/all of the groups in the Latter Day Saint movement, as your usage of the "The" in the link, but not using the "Latter-day" (with hyphen and lower case d) left this ambiguous. As you are an experienced editor who is well versed in topics about the Latter Day Saint movement, I was fairly certain that you'd be aware the name currently used by the LDS Church includes all of those elements, but that prior to the succession crisis those elements were not used, so I was confused. I am aware of many of the details of the naming changes of the church that JS Jr. founded, as well as the large number of groups claiming to be either a continuation of that church, or a successor to it, but as far as I know only the LDS Church specifies that the "The" is a part of their name; however, given your anomalous usage, I thought it might indicate there was a reason I had never heard of to use the "The" as you had done there. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 16:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * So.........you are asking if I'm a Mormon? Yes.  WBardwin (talk) 00:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Recent new editor
Thank you again for your patience as I learn about Wikipedia editing. I am, however, surprised that an "established editor" continues to use the verifiably incorrect words "without resistance" in the article, without addressing the reasoning for doing so. Please, in the interest of having an accurate article, let's put aside everything else for now and deal with just the words "without resistance". To be perfectly honest with you, it was that incorrect language... just those two words in the article... that prompted me to start editing. So, please respond to me concerning why you repeatedly insist upon using them. If you do not correct this issue, the use of those two words will become an issue that editors at the highest level, and other individuals, will end up addressing. On the other hand, if those two incorrect words are removed from the article, you will find that I will actually spend very little of my time editing, because I really do have other things that I would rather be doing. Thank you again. I am quite sincere. Verifiabledetails (talk) 19:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

To "A sniper": As we discussed on the talk page: I thank you for your first comment indicating that my initial edits were, perhaps, "too much too fast", even though they were in good faith and generally properly cited. Although I was initially shocked that you reverted everything I edited, I agreed with most of what you said, especially with regard to possibly using other articles for such detail. I pointed out that I had never before edited a Wikipedia article, and asked you to forgive me.

I, in turn, accept your apology for your initial removal of "things of merit", as you call them. However, we then had discussion on the talk page about which "things of merit" should be allowed in the article. You responded concerning some of those things, so, once again, I accepted your reversion related to those points. However, you didn't respond concerning two incorrect words contained in the article about the death of Joseph Smith. Those two words are used in a sentence, stating that Joseph Smith was attacked "without resistance". As I pointed out to you before, the separate "main article" on the death of Joseph Smith goes into great detail (all of which is well-documented and cited) about how Joseph Smith used a "six-shooter" handgun, which had been smuggled to him inside the jail, to resist his attackers. In absence of an argument from you with regard to that matter, and in the interest of making the article more accurate, I deleted the two words: "without resistance", and noted the reason in my edit summary. Without relevant explanation, those two incorrect words were added back into the article.

To "WBardwin": You came to the defense of "A Sniper" by adding the two incorrect words back into the article. You left me a message on the talk page telling me that you had done so, you acknowledged that I was totally new to editing, and you warned me that I "...need to learn how this place works." You did not, however, address whether the two words were correct. I replied to your message, thanking you, and asked for comment specifically with regard to the two incorrect words. Although you and "A Sniper" were always very quick to restore the two incorrect words to the article, two days have passed since I have asked for an explanation, and I haven't heard or seen an explanation from anyone. I have indeed been learning how this place works, and I will continue to learn. Quoting directly from Wikipedia:

"Revert vandalism on sight, but revert a good faith edit only as a last resort. Edit warring is prohibited. See three-revert rule. Editors should provide an explanation when reverting. It is particularly important to provide a valid and informative explanation when you perform a reversion. A reversion is a complete rejection of the work of another editor and if the reversion is not adequately supported then the reverted editor may find it difficult to assume good faith. This is one of the most common causes of an edit war. A substantive explanation also promotes consensus by alerting the reverted editor to the problem with the original edit. The reverted editor may then be able to revise the edit to correct the identified problem. The result will be an improved article and a more knowledgeable editor."

As I asked before, please reply specifically with regard to whether you feel that the words "without resistance" are correct or incorrect, with your full reasoning for same. While other comments from you, if civil, are welcome, please do not avoid the issue. Best regards, Verifiabledetails (talk) 18:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * What -- you waited two whole days and received no response to your most vital question! Do not expect editors to "jump" when you call -- we all have lives in the real world.  I have been out of state for several days, visiting a sick parent.  You are not nearly important enough to me to interrupt or cancel that trip.   As for your issue dealing with two whole words, rediculous as it is..... see A Sniper's suggestions and the detailed article on the Death of Joseph Smith, Jr..  This issue is well addressed there.  A final note -- I will take your future edits seriously, and consider retaining them, if and when you show some semblance of courtesy and a willingness to work with others.  Until you settle in and become constructive, please do not post on my talk page.  WBardwin (talk) 05:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Murder/Execute at Mountain Meadows
Hello there. Just curious as to why you reverted my change of the word "execute" to "murder" here - is there a source to support the use of the word murder? Just asking as I'd consider the word murder in any context (other than, say, an actual murder trial) to be pretty pov. Thanks! Fin©™ 20:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Execute, in my opinion, implies an arrest, a trial, a sentencing, and the carrying out of the judicial sentence. In this case, sadly, none of these occurred.  The victims were deceived into thinking the Mormon settlers were rescuing them from a native attack, then the adults were killed one by one.  Even without an arrest, I'm afraid, this was simply murder through mob action -- motivated by fear and a desire for revenge and justified by one or more Mormon leaders.  I'll transfer this to the MMM talk page so others can express their opinions.  Best wishes.  WBardwin (talk) 02:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment at the Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/RfC re: Admin term limits
I have taken the liberty of briefly quoting you at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Administrator regarding term limits. I had been toying with something similar myself, but your simple statement struck me as excellent wording. Many thanks! Jusdafax  20:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I placed a comment in the discussion.  WBardwin (talk) 21:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Why deleting the paragraph?
Hello, will you please explain why you deleted the paragraph about open theism? Professor emeritus Louis Midgley from Brigham Young University explained very well why the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are open theists too. I wrote it neutral.

http://www.fairblog.org/2010/01/20/lcm_open_theism/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_C._Midgley

90.231.11.211 (talk) 06:56, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I have also everything here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Christianity#What_to_do_with_good_links.3F 90.231.11.211 (talk) 07:18, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm concerned that you and Dr. Mdgeley are asserting a view that may not be doctrinally accurate. For example, in 1986, our current President Thomas S. Monson wrote that the Lord:  ".... is a resurrected, glorified, exalted, omniscient, omnipotent person and is omnipresent in spirit and power and influence, the ruler of the heavens and the earth and all things therein."  If we assert that God is omnisceient and omnipotent, how can we also assert that He does not know everything?  Even in the "blog" you used as a source, one of the commentators wrote:  "...I think (this topic) will remain in not safe for Sunday School territory for some time."  I moved your edit to the article's talk page and will move this discussion there.  Best wishes.  WBardwin (talk) 01:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Accuracy disputed - Second Anointing
In response to your emotional post on the LDS project page (which I moved to a more appropriate place on the project discussion page): More than one author, one article, and one point of view should be used as sources for all articles in Wikipedia. Editors do have the right to assert that a source is biased, and should present evidence to back their assertion. It is the Wikipedia editor's responsibility to have articles reflect varied viewpoints, balancing on the evidence and weight of each viewpoint.

In this case, the critical review of Bueger's book (clearly noted as a book review rather than the position of the LDS church) discussed Bueger's personal history, the history of his research and the methodology of this book's development, organization and publication. However, this work is still cited as a source for the article. It was not excluded. Please note that your point that any source originating within the LDS organization, their publishing system, or their educational system should be excluded also contains a severe bias. Would you then assert that no Mormon sources, or pro-Mormon sources, be used at all on LDS related articles? Would you assert that no official Catholic sources, or pro-Catholic sources, be used for Catholic articles? How about the Church of England? You see, this problem with "biased" sources goes on and on, as almost all authors have a distiguishable point of view. So, I suggest that, instead of attacking the LDS project, you discuss why you think Bueger is reliable and what research, documentation and presentation makes his work a citable source? Best wishes. WBardwin (talk) 07:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I am sorry for the “emotional” aspect of my post. I am new to Wikipedia and have not fully figured out what is going on out there, or how to use the tools. So, sorry if I am not continuing this “talk” conversation in the correct manner. The UI is not intuitive as to how to “chat”.
 * I saw the LDS Project page for the first time yesterday and my “emotions” were piqued because it appeared to me another attempt to insert the LDS version of history and to remove any dissenting information.
 * I agree with the main points you delineated above. Neutrality on a polarizing issue like religion is a difficult. However, I do believe that there are extenuating circumstances related to the Mormon Church that are not shared by other faiths. Mormon history is even more polarized due to the Church's excommunication policy and continuing efforts to quiet dissenters.
 * Being a 44 year old BIC'ed card carrying member of the Church, I have a reasonable understanding of its inner workings. I have personal experience that if a member of the Church talks about “taboo” topics outside of their own home, Church authorities will step in and threaten the Church membership of that person.  It basically comes down to, “Stop talking about this, or you will be excommunicated.” This includes scholarly papers based on documented evidence.
 * This process produces a highly polarized playing field where presenters of information are either “walking the Church line” or excommunicated and become “anti-Mormon”, “biased”, and considered poor resources because they now have an “axe to grind” with the Church. This is extremely convenient now for Mormon “academics” because all scholarly work is either “with them” or “against them”.  Any work from someone “against them” can be discredited based on the person's “obvious” bias.
 * Normal Churches, like the other denominations you mentioned above, are much more willing to have open discussions about history and admit errors. The Mormon policy is not to comment and to “control” thought from inside. Unwanted thought is pushed out.
 * So, this is where my “emotions” came from as I saw, yet again, what I perceived to be another insurgence of Church control. Yes, I do believe that, in a perfect world, it would be better to have history written by 100% non-invested authors. Of course, that is silly and not practical.  In fact, the whole notion of an “unbiased religious article” I believe is an oxymoron.
 * It almost seems to me that instead of trying to intermix opposing views into a single article, it would be better to have a “Mormon Area” and a “Non-Mormon Area” associated with each topic. Then let each side go to town, present their evidence, and let the reader decide.  I don't know, I am rambling now.
 * But again, I am sorry for posting in the wrong place and for being emotional. However, I did want you to understand where it came from. I will attempt better behavior going forward. Bakirish (talk) 16:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your response. Yes, it is appropriate to respond to my message on this talk or the discussion could be held on your talk page.  Each article and each project page has a discussion page so that editors can present complaints, concerns and explore issues with one another.  This allows the article/project page to present as "reader friendly" face as possible for those who access Wikipedia for general information.
 * As to the LDS project - please join if you are interested in working on LDS articles. During the years I have been here, I have seen project members range from "active Brighamites" like myself, inactive members of the LDS Church, members of other LDS based denominations, historians with a Mormon heritage but not belief, members of other denominations (your "Normal" churches, interesting choice of words, that), and some people openly expressing sceptical viewpoints about Mormonism.  The project encourages each person to express their opinions and concerns, as you have above, and then work with others to present as balanced a series of articles as possible.  However, as this is the real world, some articles swing widely over time from a strong LDS pov to one that is very critical, and then swing back again.  This is currently true of the Joseph Smith, Jr. article, and a couple of others I monitor regularly.  Many other LDS oriented articles have quite a tame history, and conflicts are minimal.
 * As to your interest in the Second Anointing, by its very topic it is subject to criticism and conflict. In regard to Bueger's book, my biggest concern with using it as a source is not his checkered history as a member of the LDS Church (it is my understanding that he ultimately asked for his records to be removed).  Note that Michael Quinn's books are still widely used by many editors here, despite his excommunication.  The chief concern is how the book ultimately was produced.  If Bueger did, as asserted in more than one source, turn several incomplete batches of material over to the publisher and then walked away, any conclusions in the book would have to be suspect.  As a historian, I would then be interested in his sources and data but could not rely upon his perspective.
 * I'm posting a list of information Wiki pages at the head of your talk page. As a newcomer, you might want to flip through them to expand your understanding of the site, and current policies and procedures.  Hope to see your name around on other articles.  Best wishes.  WBardwin (talk) 06:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 01:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem: Prince Csaba
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Prince Csaba, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a copy from http://www.hunmagyar.org/mondak/hun.html, and therefore a copyright violation. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:


 * If you have permission from the author to release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Prince Csaba and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Make sure you quote the exact page name, Prince Csaba, in your email. See Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
 * If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0, or that the material is released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Prince Csaba with a link to where we can find that note.
 * If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:Prince Csaba. See Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at [ this temporary page]. Leave a note at Talk:Prince Csaba saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing!

A section (detailed myth) of this article appears to duplicate the text of its cited source, and that source carries a copyright notice. AndersW (talk) 06:27, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Huh???? The article history shows that I added 2 bytes back in 2008.  Don't remember why.  Maybe it showed up as a link in another article.  Don't really know anything about the guy.  Good luck.  WBardwin (talk) 09:18, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * And for that you get a "Welcome to Wikipedia"? Get a grip, Anders. Bishonen | talk 19:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC).


 * Hi Bishonen! Well, I put in a paragraph break in 2008 and suddenly I'm responsible for a copyright violation!  I assume Anders sent the same message to all editors of the article, but does seem a bit heavy handed.  Good to hear from you!  WBardwin (talk) 05:54, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * How's it going, W? Bishonen | talk 09:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC).
 * Well, like so many Americans, I'm broke! I've been a private business contractor for over ten years now, but several of my major long term clients have had their budgets severely cut.  So...I'm watching my savings dwindle and looking for things to do.  Other than that -- family health issues are improving and I just harvested a bunch of fresh tomatoes and peppers from my garden.  I saw that you were ill for some time, Bishonen.  Hope that things are looking up for you.  Best .... WBardwin (talk) 00:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Broke? Dear me. :-( I'm replying by e-mail. Bishonen | talk 13:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC).
 * Just got back from visiting my mother out of state, and saw your note. Will respond in kind, probably next week as my schedule stands now.  Thanks for the interest.  WBardwin (talk) 06:51, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry. I got the wrong editor, off by one in the history.  I apologize for that, and for the heavy handed and authoritative language.  (It's English Wikipedia boiler plate.) Editor PZJTF made the offending entry; he was blocked 2009-06-10.  I regret causing you unwarranted aggravation.  Cheers.  AndersW (talk) 13:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh. Honest mistake and sooooo easy to do if you're in a hurry.  No worries.  Have I seen your name on some LDS articles?  Seems familiar.  WBardwin (talk) 00:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi! A request for your input
Per wp:CANVASSING, this is a neutrally worded notice being sent, without any type of "selection" bias, to everyone that edited fairly recently the MOS page about how to term the Latter Day Saints denominations on Wikipedia in the belief that your various and collective expertise or expertises, if that's a plural, can help us improve its wording, if possible. a bit. The most pertinent section is here. And the issue is to what degree the terms "Mormon church" and "LDS church" relate to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, in specific, and to what kind of sourcing should be used to document this. Thanks, if you find time and the interest to look into the matter and offer your opinion or commentary.--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 23:13, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Winterbourne, Gloucestershire
An article that you have been involved in editing, Winterbourne, Gloucestershire, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Skinsmoke (talk) 10:42, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Miss America protest
An article that you have been involved in editing, Miss America protest, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. — btphelps (talk) (contribs) 17:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Ichthus: January 2012
 In this issue...

- Ichthus is published by WikiProject Christianity For submissions and subscriptions contact the Newsroom
 * From the Editor
 * What are You doing For Lent?
 * Fun and Exciting Contest Launched
 * Spotlight on WikiProject Catholicism

Propose to delink Mogollon Culture from Oasis America article
Hi. Since you've contributed to the Mogollon article I want to give you a heads up. I propose to remove on Nov 5 2012 the link from the Mogollon article and the Oasis America article. No practitioner of archaeology or anthropology in the US Southwest or Mexican states of Sonora and Chihuahua uses the "OasisAmerica" concept, and it is not used in any major summary such as Linda Cordell's Archaeology of the Southwest or Brian Fagan's Prehistory of North America 4E. Indeed, the term does not seem to be used anywhere except on the Wikipedia OasisAmerica page. It seems to be a term related to the modern geopolitical Azatlan movement. Mike Diehl (talk) 21:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC) PhD

Joseph Smith - FAC
Hello WBardwin,

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) 19:37, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Plague of Athens - Typhoid fever
Hi WBardwin. I think you made this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Plague_of_Athens&diff=51885339&oldid=51766645

Please see my comments on the Plague of Athens talk page. You may remember your source for this and clarify the reasoning which I find puzzling. Thanks. —Blanchette (talk) 07:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

In some benign wp:CANVASSING
Community input is politely requested for Jimbo's tkpg with regard ur expertise in gen. notability per wp:GNG & applicabilities of eg wp:PROF, wp:AUTH, etc. w/in AfD's ... here: User talk:Jimbo Wales.--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 00:47, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I.e.: Is Matthew Grow, editor of The Council of Fifty, Minutes, March 1844–January 1846 (The Church Historian's Press, which is an imprint of Deseret Book; 2016), notable? Is Benjamin E. Park, who reviews him here: "The Mormon Council of Fifty: What Joseph Smith’s Secret Records Reveal" (Religion & Politics, September 9, 2016)? Please chime in on a way to determine such questions in a much more consistent manner than at present...here: User_talk:Jimbo_Wales.--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 19:03, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Category:American cattlemen has been nominated for discussion
Category:American cattlemen, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. Tobias Epos (talk) 19:59, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Charles C. Painter information
I am doing some research on Charles C. Painter, and I saw that on the article you created in 2005 you said that his father had freed his slaves prior to the Civil War. Do you still have your source for this information? I could not find it anywhere else.