User:WBardwin/Archive 5 (Jan-June 2007)

Material from WBardwin's Discussion Page

January 1 through June 30, 2007

The Pottery article

Hi WB, you went north and I went south, welcome back. Some time ago I was threatening to give the pottery article a working-over and I've now started to do this. I'd be very grateful if you'd keep an eye on what I'm up to, because, as you know, I'm not a potter. Regards, Nick. Nick 10:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello WB, this is just to let you know that dispute about pottery figurines has started up again. I've called for mediation and Sean Brunnock has agreed to this. The discussions seem to be taking place on Sean's talk page and are (at this stage at least) being conducted in a civilised way. For the call for mediation, see Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-01-16_Difference_of_opinion_about_pottery. and for the discussions themselves see Sean's talk page User_talk:Brunnock. Regards, Nick. Nick 19:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Helping out with the Unassessed Wikipedia Biographies

Seeing that you are an active member of the WikiBiography Project, I was wondering if you would help lend a hand in helping us clear out the amount of [unassessed articles] tagged with {{WPBiography}}. Many of them are of stub and start class, but a few are of B or A caliber. Getting a simple assessment rating can help us start moving many of these biographies to a higher quality article. Thank you! --Ozgod 23:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for upgrading the Archibald Gardner western pioneer biography. I see that several paradgraphs have been moved around, and a couple of sentences have been added. Others that have been assisting, mostly off-line, will be contacted concerning your changes. At present I see that most of the changes were needed.

Concerning copyright issues, I wrote virtually every word myself, linked to my great grandfather's journal, and related family records. I have been contributing to Wikipedia in other areas, and I am keenly aware of the line between solid references and 'stealing' another's words. Thank you for the reminder. Best Regards, Milogardner

Greetings to you too

I didn't reply, did I.. ? :-( Sorry. But I was delighted to hear from you! Bishonen | talk 21:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

So was I! Frutti di Mare 21:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

Bishzilla give mighty roar of pleasure at return of little W! Bishzilla _ROARR!! zilla4admin 21:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

Archibald Gardner

Could you please review the changes I've made to this article? Here's the dif from your last edit, and a permalink to my last edit in case it gets reverted. Unfortunately Milogardner (talk · contribs) has taken what I perceive as a WP:OWN position on this article in regards some of the edits I've previously made, and I feel that the user has been unduly confrontational with me, so I do not want to deal directly with that user. Instead I have tried to respond to comments left by Milogardner here (regarding the {essay-entry}} tag I added to that article) by reworking the article, removing unencyclopedic material & tightening it up to better meet WP:BIO. Please let me know what you think, as I would appreciate a second opinion by you. -- 63.224.137.164 16:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll keep my eye on it.....new editors get very attached to articles, and I think this is a family project with more than one person contributing info. I know a little about this pioneer, and can probably bring the article along to basic Wiki standards. I think I sense a familiar pattern to your edits -- glad to see you back. WBardwin 22:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The topic is now under control. The anonymous user 63.224.137.164 has been overly defensive for reasons that are not clear. His/her hit and run tactics have now stopped, so all is well. Milogardner

Thank you for your comments. My aunt Zella left Spanish Fork in 1906, for Orange County, California, after the second manifesto. Archibald's son, Cy, my grandfather Rea, my father, left Spanish Fork in the early 1920's tO clear land for growing Orange tress, as Robert, William and Archibald had cleared land by hand for farming 100 years earlier.

Your group's anonymous editor is too sensitive. Thin skinned Wikipedia editors need to get over it, and allow everyone their say! Even though I have two brothers that live in Utah, Bountiful and Logan, four other brothers and three sisters live/lived in California. Utah LDS history takes a lesser slant, myopic to my analysis, than do California historians. My great uncle William founded Odgen and Cache Valley, and is not fully recognized in those area since he only stayed a few years in each location.

That is, Archibald traveled widely, Canada, Utah, Wyoming and other places, and should not be thought of as only a Utah LDS pioneer. Your anonymous editor seems not to see beyond Utah's borders, discussing its pioneeros that stayed in Utah, a common fault seen in every Deseret Book store - with its shelves filled with Utah Pioneer history, and bare for other states, especially California, reached and settled before Utah was settled. Without Sam Brannan's efforts, and many others, Utah would have experienced greater cash crises before Archibald brought in gold, silver and other mining activities near West Jordan.

Finally, I will continue to accept anyone's editorial comments and additions to Archibald's life. However, think big, and we'll all enjoy reading the details his life as it took place. Best Regards, Milogardner

Milogardner -- well! I can see why the anon editor thought you were defending your turf! Your group's anonymous editor is too sensitive.....Thin skinned ....get over it, and allow everyone their say! I'm glad that you ...will continue to accept anyone's editorial comments and additions to Archibald's life. Please, remember that the Wiki article is not yours. All interested parties, including our anon editor (who, if I am not mistaken, shares your last name), are free to work on the article as they wish. Reverting honorable edits, yes, even anon's, submitted with good intentions, is generally perceived as aggressive and territorial. As time permits, I will look over the article, edit and add my bit, as appropriate. Others will as well. I would encourage you to take all honest edits in good faith. Best........... WBardwin 19:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Baldwin. You know more of the anon poster than I. As a Gardner he should share his first name, and his family links to Archibald, if that is the case. My sensitivies line in the area of Egyptian mathematics, and abstract facts, as noted by Kahun Papyrus and many other posts. I am a math historian, as an avocation, and enjoy family history as a second hobby, taken up because no one else had documented Archibald's life on Wikipedia. That is to say, I still do no know where your anon Gardner is coming from! I enjoy most of his points, but he had erased several personality citations - because he cleary does not (wish to) know the man, Archbibald as we have known him through my father, aunts, uncles, grandfather and other family members. Thank you for living nearby one of his many Utah mills, and commenting in a positive and thoughful manner. Best Regards, Milogardner

In regard to the content of the article, you might take a look at related established Wiki policies - Wikipedia:List of policies. My concerns about the article, including those personality details, are probably covered in Wikipedia:No original research which is a firm Wiki policy. Material without some published source, somewhere, is simply considered inapproriate for the Wiki. So, unless your family material has been formally published, you should trim those personal details.

I would also suggest taking a look at article guidelines and standards established at:

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement

Best to you. WBardwin 04:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank for the links. The following info from your link omits many of the facts of history as outlined in the Book of Mormon. No where is Egyptian math mentioned as the Book of Mormon suggests arrived in Mesoamerica with Lehi. To be clear, Mesoamericans used modular arithmetic, as the Dresden Codex is detailed by (Floyd Lounsbury, The Sky in Mayan Literature, A.A. Aveni, editor). Egyptians used a lesser form of this form of arithmetic. To Ahmes and all other scribers, remainder arithmetic was used within quotients and remainders, with remainders stated as Egyptian fraction unit fractions. One day FARMS will find a way to confirm these common forms of arithmetic, used by Chihese and other astronomers dating to 1900 BCE, as ancients monitored the cycles of our planets, by looking at remainders and time, and so forth. For now these Old World and New World numerical facts are oddly separated from our planet's history, an area that Archaeoastronomers have only been professionally working on since 1975.

[edit] Systems of measuring time (calendars) All of the dates given in the Book of Mormon are stated in terms of the Nephite calendar. The system of dates used by the Lamanites is not stated. The highest numbered month mentioned is the eleventh, and the highest numbered day is the twelfth, but the total number of months in a year and the number of days in a month is not specified.[82] It is inferred from the dates presented in the narrative that the Book of Mormon uses a standard 7-day Jewish calendar (with one day of sabbath) as the calendar system used by the Nephite people.

One of the more distinctive features shared among pre-Columbian Mesoamerican civilizations is the use of an extensive system of inter-related calendars. The epigraphic and archaeological record for this practice dates back at least 2,500 years, by which time it appears to have been well-established.[83] The most widespread and significant of these calendars was the 260-day calendar, formed by combining 20 named days with 13 numerals in successive sequence (13 × 20 = 260).[84] Another system of perhaps equal antiquity is the 365-day calendar, approximating the solar year, formed from 18 'months' × 20 named days + 5 additional days. These systems and others are found in societies of that era such as the Olmec, Zapotec, Mixe-Zoque, Mixtec and Maya (whose system of Maya calendars are widely regarded as the most intricate and complex among them) reflected the vigesimal (base 20) numeral system and other numbers, such as 13 and 9, which held particular significance.[citation needed]

Although the number 7 is a co-factor in some Mesoamerican calendars (such as the Mayan 819-day calendar, formed from 13 × 9 × 7 days), none of the calendar systems used a 7-day count as an exclusive or even prominent base, and the most important ones did not use it at all

My review on this history reads the ancient texts, the only primary references, and the journals of our pioneers, as they were written. That is, I present no revisionist views at all, therefore following Wikiodia's rules almost to a fault. My training has been in mathematics and cryptanalytics, code breaking, as learned 50 years ago. These skills are continuing to allow the life of Archibald Gardner and Egyptian texts like the Kahun Papyrus, and other suhjects, to be equally reported without language and other interferences from revisionists of several ilks.

Let me stop at this point and ask that you ponder the implications of our interactions, and our apparent contrasting views on scholarship. You appear to be saying that meta analysis, of any type, is not allowed in LDS circles, an unfair and unclear assumption if I ever heard/read one. Facts are facts. Report them in context, as Wikipedia requires, and let the chips fall where they may. This is a policy that I follow on both sides of my retirement hobbies. Our personal context tends to bias many facts. Yes, our bivalent Westerm language minds tend to be two-sided (with one side often fighting against the other). One side is contained in words, one side of our brains. Words are your forte. One Wikipedia reference for this topic is Triarchic theory of intelligence, an earlier book, Triarchic Mind, by Robert Sternberg has not been covered on the cited Wikipedia link. However, words and sentences (that we use) often times do not describe reality, omitting the exlucded middle, and are therefore are not understandable. To correct aspects of this problem the other side of our brains, numbers needs to be added. The number side is my forte. Together, words and numbers, provide meta substance and structure to our secular and spiritual lives. You may disagree with the left brain, right brain, meta brain model (the triarchic mind). Whatever the case, I propose it can be fairly applied in ways that are too numerous to mention (though not documented very well by Wikipedia rules). As a positive example, the Aymara language in Boliva, may open new doors to our longer life, culturally speaking. This three part model may extend back into history, yes, even to segments of the Book of Mormon for LDS researchers that wish to read the trivalent syntax used by others. Such a language journey tends to pick up hints to a possible Jaredite Adamic syntax. Yes, Adamic's language structure is unknown, and may remain unknown for some time. Yet, Aymara was by structure and utility closer to Adamic than any language that we know of today, especially the one we are now using. My logic may be weak in this area, but the subject is profound, and therefore is worth considering off-line and outside of Wikipedia rules. That is to say, Adamic may have been at least trivalent. This proposed fact may be appreciated by others, given the proper circumstance. Thinking outside the box, as noted above, is a common position that I try to position myself on philoosphical and other issues.

Again, thank you very much for your personal additions to the life of Archibald Gardner, a pioneer of the Old West that often thought and acted 'outside the box' jump starting teh commerical side ofr several communities, another one being Spanish Fork, Utah along the way.

Best Regards, Milogardner

As a postscript. Archibald Gardner can been as an ad hoc family history project, as you have suggested, though I have thought of the wider implications of a Wikipedia entry for some time. bronsongardner, well known to me, is ably adding many new facts,and situations that I have been working into Archibald's life story. It appears that your anon editor (is following your group's guidelines to the T) has not fully read Archibald's life, and in several respects, editing our his perosnaility (for example). Therefore he may not be qualified to be an editor of his life in all respects. Of course, the anon editor's links and other structural additions to Archibald Gardner, the Wikipedia article are greatly appreciated.Milogardner

Yesterday I dropped a note into Johnathn's talk page, hoping to make direct contact with a cousin It appears that he does not reply to his talk page. Therefore, I humbly request that you humbly request Johnathn to contact me in some manner. My talk page would be fine. However, if he prefers, off-line, he may use milogardner@yahoo.com. Best Regards, Milogardner

Thank you, finally, for citing your qualifications beyond your LDS family history, as noted by: "On a personal note -- you might reconsider your insistence on qualifications for editors to articles you create or edit. A concern about credentials also violates Wikipedia's mandate that everyone, regardless of qualifications, is able to edit and contribute here. Most people would be highly insulted if asked for their qualifications or if their contributions were eliminated for a lack of qualifications. I was offended by your recent comments. My editing pattern is not "hit and miss" on the article because of lack of interest, but primarily because of lack of time and a respect (now degrading) for your honest intent as an editor. If you want to know my qualifications, I have a degree in history with a specialty in Western American history between 1870 and 1910. "

To be specific concerning my qualifications, beyond MBA and BA Math degrees, I hold a minor in Economic Thought, enjoying 15 units of upper division work in European and American economic thought. Again, Deseret offered a failed economic system, a point that your 'unqualified' committee members seem unwilling to discuss (by footnote or any direct method). Thank you for citing Gen Kane. He is an excellent reference. Given that he was not LDS, his personality and family members accomplishments have been freely inserted into his Wiki article, points that your editors - working off a set of undisclosed set of 'defend Zion myopic policies' seem unwilling to freely do in the case of Archibald Gardner. My great grandmother Serera Gardner lived 55 years in Spanish Fork. Serena treated a freed 'slave' mid-wife named Venus as Aunt Venus (given the 1858 death of her LDS slave owner, in a link that keeps getting eliminated by your editors). One reason for Venus's acceptance was that Serena's mother had been a single mother and mid-wife in Norway. Venus and her sister were single mothers and mid-wives in Spanish Fork. Another can be seen in journals of her shipmates, traveling from New Orleans up the Missisippi in 1854 (with 600 + Scandinavian Saints emigrating to Zion). I'd like to find Venus and her sister's graves, and honor them as family members. One day the 'straddle the fence' LDS view on slavery, and its failed economic system may document a few lives like Aunt Venus (who finally lived a 'free' life in Utah with her small family, though eking out a subsistence living in the failed Zion economy).

Archibald's father, Robert Gardner, stood up to Brigham Young, as did many LDS church members, when it came to economic issues. Quoting from Archibald's book, and Robert, "Brigham Young did not own Zion". Individual economic and political liberty and decentralized 'voices' came slow in Utah, as also noted in the failed LDS San Bernardino colony. It took the second manifesto, 1906, to allow my aunt Zella to leave Utah for southern California in 1908, with my grandfather and father following in the early 1920's cleared land in Orange County, as Robert, and his family had done in Canada, by ax. The 1857 to 1906 period in Utah needs to be fully explained by apologists, such as noted by yourself (an issue that re-appears in the editing of Archibald's life, over and over again.

Again, you may properly feel insulted by my request, as I have often have felt insulted by your editing. Hopefully we can finally (and exclusively) use United States economic history, beginning with Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations( you have read and accepted its Scottish Enlightenment principles, right?) as the ONLY acceptable economic model to report Utah economic history. Given the freedom to live where one pleases, and freely associate with anyone that one pleases, Utah and California LDS members finally began to prosper after 1906, a point that I'd like to work into Archibald article, provided your committee spends its time working on the real issues of pioneer Utah: how and when did the failed economic system of Zion change in Utah, and in other places that LDS members lived, and so forth, finally becoming 'free enterprise' oriented in word and deed. Best Regards, Milogardner

Just don't get it do you --------- what you are doing here does not follow Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Your article is at risk for deletion and you don't want or accept anyone's help. LDS project standards have nothing to do with the advice and help we have been trying to offer you. Don't bother contacting me again. Good luck to you -- I suspect you will need it. WBardwin 20:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear Brother Baldwin. Thank you for considering to reassign your LDS project away from Archibald's Wiki pape, especially if your guidelines do not offer positive ways of writing up his life, as you have noted. On a positive note, I have appreciated several structural suggestions offered by your committee. But, the detailed aspects of their edits have presented a series of problems.

That is, it is your choice to speak to whomever you wish, whenever you wish, and however you wish. You, and I, are free to be Wikipedia renegades by adding or deleting the work of others, as each of us feels is appropriate. Wikipedia asks for a civil tone, though anyone is free to feel disappointed at the actions/writings of others. My position from day one has only been to write up my great grandfather's life in a manner that others may appreciate, citing a few of his pioneer achievements. Since your view of the history of Utah, and the path that Utah pioneers have taken to reach statehood, and prosperity, appears to differ, at least in respect to Archibald Gardner and Adam Smith's economic system, hopefully you can calmly walk away and write off our differing views as just another California versus Utah problem. The problem began with Sam Brannan, and continues today with my retelling a few of the story lines. Best Regards, Milogardner

The non-existant LDS committee has not been "called off". It is my personal decision not to interfere in your ill-fated project. Others who work on LDS articles may chose to contribute to the article. Please do not post on my discussion page in the future. WBardwin 21:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

J. Gardner

Dear Mr. Baldwin. Archibald Gardner's story lines are well documented, all describing his well known personality published in Deliah's book, and other places. One story had him building a saw mill on the moon. That is, you seem to have prematurely taken Johnathn's side before any evidence has been provided - that he may have (and did) act improperly - destroying vital information without cause, which I have humbly requested that he return. There is a Wikipedia rule against this situation, right? Best Regards, Milogardner 3/29/07.

I've not taken any side -- other than

1) urging that everyone follow Wikipedia policy and guidelines.

2) asking that editors, anon or not, receive courteous consideration of their edits.

When I have more editing time (sometime next month, I hope), I will take a look at the Archibald Gardner article as well as a couple of others that have been recently expanded or overhauled. In the meantime, I simply encourage you to objectively consider the comments/edits that others have made to the article. WBardwin 00:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the considerations. Of course I will be following Wikipedia style, content and good manners. I look forward to your personal review of Archibald Gardner and the manner and extent in which his personality/speaking style has been unfairly excised from his article. Looking closely at J. Gardners' talk page you'll see complaints from others, i.e. Mitt Romney, that have been made overly brief in critical areas by his terse editing style. Given that I'll be DSL ready this week, several video and text files of my father and others in my family can be made avaailable to J. Gardner, given his sincere desire to consider becoming a working ad hoc member of the Archibald Gardner family effort to fairly report his life, rather than a sometimes critic (leaving no markers to open issues that may easily allow discussions of apparent differences). Best Regards, Milogardner

1632

Thanks... how'd you manage to squeeze this one in that lil' time slot!?? <BSEG> This is a fun series to read if you like history and insights of what goes on behind events. Best regards, // FrankB 21:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, you were editing away madly, but I did manage to squeeze in a couple of copy edits as well. I am enjoying the series, but the "editor-in-me" wanted to tighten the prose in 1635: The Cannon Law. Keep up the good work. WBardwin 00:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

LOL - careful, if you tighten it much more it will become a singularity and implode! As to the 'good work', I've been MIA pretty much since summer on that series. Other matters on the plate(s). It's nice to get an editing break in articles again. (I've been pushing for that.) If you're going through this now, suggest you take some notes... need to begin putting together some sort of character list page, and the historical figures section is pretty skimpy though some have done good work with that since I last looked in. Interested? // FrankB 13:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Historical figures

The page above is being considered for deletion. Please feel free to take part in the discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Historical figures. John Carter 18:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

re Archibald Gardner

Just wanted to drop you a note that I have read through this article, and my first thought was - is this guy even notable? Unfortunately because of my unfamiliarity with him. I need to do some reading before I feel competent to enter into editing. Drop me a reminder if I haven't edited it by Sunday 4/8. --Trödel 17:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, one of his Utah mills is on the National Historic Register, and he was an early Mormon pioneer and local church leader. So perhaps mildly LDS notable. But the original editor, and his family evidently, are more interested in focusing the article on mill building. If that area exists on Wikipedia, I would question his notability. But, it certainly reads like some of my family history - one of my ancestors built a couple of flour mills in northern Utah at about the same time. Will try and work on the article. WBardwin 22:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Exactly (re family history) - I was trying to find an independent, non-primary source, but couldn't see one. As far as I can tell the article does not meet the standards in WP:V, WP:RS or WP:ATT. But I am not sure if marking it with a primary sources tag would provoke things further --Trödel 01:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I tried to summarize the sources fairly and explain why there must be original research in the article. See also my response to his attacking comments on my talk page. --Trödel 20:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Warning Users of Vandalism

Thank you for reverting vandalism to Wikipedia, which you did in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. After you revert, I would recommend also warning the users whose edits you revert on their talk pages with an appropriate template or custom message. This will serve to direct new users towards the sandbox, educate them about Wikipedia, and a stern warning to a vandal may prevent him or her from vandalizing again. Thank you.

If you aren't familiar with the user templates, you can also look at my user page for a quick tutorial and list of common templates. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 03:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Bill, I've been around Wikipedia quite a long time and have reverted plenty of vandals on LDS articles. When I think they have potential for becoming responsible editors, I contact them with a personal message and encouragement. I avoid templates, of almost all types, on principal, as I find them personally offensive, abrupt and impersonal. Thanks for your interest. WBardwin 08:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I know you have been around for a while, and I hope that my use of the template wasn't offensive to you. It was a while before I become aware of the templates, so I thought I would mention them, just in case. ;^)

Personally, I especially add warning templates to those who I don't think have a chance of becoming a responsible editor because the history of warnings hastens the time when they will be blocked. I check for warnings whenever a page on my watchlist has been vandalized, even when someone else does the revert. I think of it as one way to reduce vandalism. I must admit that at times it feels like emptying the ocean with a small bucket. ;^) wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 13:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Pipil

Yes I do, the CIA world factbook. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/es.html#People

Manic Hispanic 06:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Salt glaze stoneware

Hello WBardwin. I can not agreewith your partial reversion of my recent edit: "Designs using a cobalt colorant is sometimes used to produce a vibrant blue decoration which is often considered a trademark of this ware." There too much stoneware without blue decoration to class it as being a trademark. I am not saying it cobalt decoration should not be noted, just that it is not represetative of the genre. ThanxTheriac 21:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry -- I will assert the point. Historically, salt-glaze stoneware, particularly in the Eastern US has been identified solely by its cobalt decoration. To collectors, the color and decorative styles are important identifiers. The distinction does not apply to all stoneware in the category, i.e. Japanese stoneware, but is an important distinction and needs to be made. Perhaps we should expand the article a little. Best.........WBardwin 22:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I would agree that cobalt decorated wares should be featured. I can not comment about wares from Eastern US but from a European perspective I can not agree that salt-glaze stoneware has ever been characterised by this decoration. Such decoration are widely found, such as German beer steins, but not as to be said as being identified solely with it. Hopefully this link will work but have a look at: http://www.aspireauctions.com/auction34/details/5445.html That is a "classic" salt-glaze stoneware jug. ThanxTheriac 17:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Chaco Canyon

I'm grateful for the compliment, though I consider that a team effort since much of the work had already been done. Thank you! Saravask 13:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Tom Haws

Thanks for your warm welcome. Tom Haws 14:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The WikiProject Biography Newsletter: Issue II - April 2007

The April 2007 issue of the WikiProject Biography newsletter has been published.You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. BetacommandBot 20:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for Congrats! ;^)

Thanks for your kind words. Hopefully, you will never need your "scream for help" list, but if you do, hopefully I will be able to help. ;^) wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 13:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Elizabeth Cady Stanton (Relatively Urgent)

Am trying to get the ECS article up to at least A-Class standards and have submitted it for review as such. Am hoping you might comment on it ASAP. Since you've contributed so much to the article, particularly in the early stages, I would greatly value your input. I've found most of the missing citations, but am hoping you can provide ones for a couple of very good quotes you added to the article, particularly those concerning her position on abortion. Many thanks Jancarhart 22:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the work you have done on the Stanton article in the last few months. My time here has been erratic due to work and family issues. Although I would certainly support A-class and would like to work toward featured article status, my time is again variable. I am leaving for Idaho on Tuesday, May 1st for up to ten days and will have limited internet access there. Once I'm back, however, I will have more time here. I have plans to help move another article to featured status and merge two small articles into one. I should be able to work on Stanton as well. As I recall, the abortion issue and quotes came primarily from two sources, the books by Baker and Dubois. Thanks for the invitation to help. WBardwin 01:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

ECS Reply (A-Class status)

Many thanks for your reply to my earler request for help on ECS article -- and many thanks for letting me know which sources you think you found the abortion quote/info in. I should be able to find them fairly easily. If you can add a comment to the ECS A-Class article review section saying that you think the article merits A-Class status, which it can have without having all needed citations, that would be great. Needs three people to support the nomination by the end of the day today, so I'm hoping you might add your vote. (Go to ECS discussion page; Click on "show" link next to where it says "more information about this article" in the box at the top of the page; Click on "currently undergoing," then, assuming you support the elevation to A-Class status, add a brief comment saying you support the nomination.) Hope you get this message in time! Many thanks again -- and have a good trip! Jancarhart 18:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Done! Good luck on the upgrade. Best.........WBardwin 20:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Once again, many thanks! Will let you know about the citations. Jancarhart 22:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Pontiac's Rebellion

Hi, W, here are some points in random order about Pontiac's Rebellion. I don't know whether you wanted this on the article's Talk, feel free to move it anywhere you like.

• According to the EB, the events are called Pontiac's War. Has that been considered as the name for the article? (It is now a redirect.) "Pontiac's War" is frequently used in the article, and it's even stated, in "Naming the conflict", that "Pontiac's War" is "probably the most commonly used"! Also it seems to me that the symmetrical term war is more NPOV than rebellion, which tells the reader what side to look at the phenomenon from (=that of the victors).
• Are you really allowed to talk about American Indians? Isn't that terribly non-PC? I was surprised to see it. I would have assumed it would mean trouble at FAC. (Though I'm unsure what you ought to say instead—please bear in mind that I'm no American.) Whoah! I even see "natives", in the section "Tribes involved"! And "Ohio natives" explicitly doesn't refer to people native to the region, either--they're recent immigrants to it. This can't be right. (OTOH, of course it makes good sense to use "natives" in "Amherst's policies", about how the British "made little effort to conceal their contempt for the natives.") Mind you, though, I see Ganymead reviewed it, he would surely know, and would protest if something like that wasn't correct. Oh, well, I've probably misunderstood the whole nomenclature thing.
• I thought the third paragraph of the Lead editorialized too much. Maybe you guys don't know how dirty European wars were... I have boldly edited it, and removed the comparison.
• I've unwrapped an Easter Egg link or two, they're deprecated. See Wikipedia:Piped link.
• Personally, I like the box with the quote in the "Origins" section, but FAs are big on being just the same as other FAs, layout-wise. The box will probably have to go.
• I think the last paragraph of "Tribes involved" should come sooner, somehow. It feels delayed, and like an unexpected kind of thing, where it is. Not on the right level for its placement.
• I get the impression the page is meticulously referenced and cited, but I can't say I've checked up—I'm so clueless about the subject anyway.
• Please check my little copyedits, revert any or all of them, I won't be offended.
• Very nice! Very well-written and handsome article. All of you who have worked on it are to be congratulated. It's very accessible and lucid for the ignorant. (I'm well placed for noticing that. ;-)) I like the "Legacy" section in particular — it's very thought-provoking and intellectual, yet crafted so that it's easy to take in. Bishonen | talk 00:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

Thanks so much, Bishonen. Very helpful. I'll copy to the talk page for Kevin's review. WBardwin 07:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't help but see the above when I was doing the ECS bit below and finally decided to offer the following: The newest museum in DC is the Museum of the American Indian, so named by the Native Americans involved in developing the museum. And, of course, Native Americans who were stauch supporters of tribal and Native American rights called themselves the American Indian Movement (AIM). I know what terms are PC and what terms aren't changes, but I think the term American Indian is fine and is, in fact, even a self-chosen label by members of the group involved. Jancarhart 22:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. Kevin's response on the article's talk page addressed most of your points. We asked Bishonen for an outside view of this fine article, just before putting it up for featured article status. It passed! and will be a featured article soon. Take a look! WBardwin 01:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Mormonism and Christianity

I hope you don't mind, but I quoted your entry on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints outlining comparison points between LDS and Mainstream Christians. I copied your entry to Mormonism and Christianity. We are working on restructuring the article, and your chart seemed quite appropriate. Thanks! and enjoy your time off. ;^) wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 18:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem, Bill -- glad to be of help. But, you might consider adding to the center section: LDSaints don't really believe in "original sin" . It didn't seem too applicable to the info request, but is a significant distinction. Just checking in today on someone else's machnine, but should be "back" soon. Best........... WBardwin 00:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Archibald Gardner

I disargee with you competly... any historian wouldn't just say "Harding" they would say ... Warren G. or President, In Elder isn't apportie at least use the full name

The above was written on 10:14, 16 May 2007 by User:Coalhouse Wish I knew what he was talking about! But the Wikipedia convention on names is to use the surname in articles unless there is a chance of internal confusion. WBardwin 20:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC))

After a very unpleasant exchange where I tried to guide milogardner on creating a proper encyclopedia article. I decided to delete all of the unnecessary and unsourced details. I don't know much about Gardner but what is left is a decent summary of the reliable sources that were given. Please help as I am on rarely. --Trödel 01:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't seem to communicate with Milogardner so I posted a [Request for Comment directing people to Talk:Archibald Gardner#Request for Comment. --Trödel 16:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I have placed my comments on the talk page -- and included a counter example and alternative idea for an article. MiloGardner is apparently intractable, as three of the LDS editors have now tried to rein him in. The next step might be to categorize the article with notability problems and let editors outside the LDS circle have a go at the problem. Thanks for your efforts. WBardwin 20:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Thx for the note - he seems to view any attempt at an explanation of Wikipedia policy as efforts by a "committee" (whatever that is) to degrade Gardner's place in history. I know I responded a little too strongly in response to what I viewed as provocation. Anyway, it would be nice if some outside editors took a look from the RfC entry. Perhaps a better way would be to get some wider exposure with a report to one of the admin boards, as after reviewing the guy more, I would be inclined to keep a short article on him. --Trödel 21:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

L. R. Kershaw -- article with similar problems. Prominent community leader with really no published sources. WBardwin 20:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

ECS & Abortion

I replied to your ECS/SBA abortion question on the ECS discussion page. Hope it helps calm things down. Folks didn't like her position on ratifying the 14th and 15th amendments either. So it goes! Jancarhart 00:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Topping Reference

I noticed you added Topping as a reference to two articles. How can these be references when they were not used for the writing of the article? Wouldn't they, more appropriately be something like "Additional Reading"? --Blue Tie 12:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Patience -- it was late. They will be used as material for all four articles. And I will use the reference to create a fifth. WBardwin 21:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Mormon spambot

You know, I studied those two anon IP reverts, and they appear to be coming from an automated spambot. What do you think? Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 07:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not a spambot. Please try to keep the faith with WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. Someone who disagrees with wholesale changes to an established article is not a spammer nor a troll. thanks. 207.179.28.20 07:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I am personally unaware of any automated spambot devoted to Mormon articles. The anons edits appear to be from two different IP#'s which show different editing patterns. I reviewed your edits before I reverted once again. My revert is based on my review of your material, and my opinion concurs with the two previous reverts. I particularly objected to the changes in the topic paragraph. Much of your material is POV -- some strikingly so -- and should be vetted on the talk page before enclosure. Please review archives and the talk page before making significant edits, as I believe Storm Rider suggested on the talk page. Be aware that this is a controversial topic and gets reworked by new editors on a regular basis. Only well sourced and well discussed edits have a "long life" in this article. I am copying this discussion to the MMM talk page. WBardwin 07:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Wiki policy: Wikipedia:Consensus

Pottery Terms in Korean article

Re. Iwanafish Letter

Thanks for your long message and I am beginning to appreciate your perspective. I am a resident of the Asia scene for many decades as well as the publishing scene here for books on Asian arts. For my part I am only interested in translations of terms that are at best handy for all concerned. In other words the "pottery", "porcelain" and "ceramics" configuration just happens to work for everybody both east and west. Translation is always a matter of what is convenient. The matter that I suspect you have overlooked is that not only are we dealing with objects from alien traditions, but also the terminolgy for them as well. We have to accept it all and hope to find a midway point. The Koreans have the right to insist on their terminology to a great extent, I would think. If we do not adopt this attitude Wikipedia will lose Asian interest and the willingness of Asian writers to participate. I would be greatful for your input and advice on anything that I write re. Asian art. I was interesting that you brought up the "Chinese ceramics" page because I have had discussions with the author. His change from "Chinese porcelain" to "Chinese ceramics" was at my suggestion. In the end the main point would seem to me what will work for everyone. An interest case can be made from Japanese usage for example. All porcelain, ceramic ware is often referred to as "toki" in Japanese which should be translated as simply "pottery." Just as often they will use "tojiki" which begs a "ceramics" English translation. And of course the Japanese have traditionally loved best low fired wares. Many of the best western potters from Leach on have valued the "pottery" tradition here in Japan. I can appreciate the force and attraction the term has. Sincerely --Iwanafish 11:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I certainly have great respect for Asian pottery traditions, and do think we should honor source definitions and compromise whenever possible. But internal consistency would be of great value to the English speaking/reading public for whom we are writing the encyclopedia. As of now, there is little consistency in vocabularly on the art and clay related articles.

English has great flexibility in vocabulary and usage, but that strength does lead to problems in translation from other cultures. The three (just three, initially, I hope) terms we are discussing come to modern English from three different sources. "Ceramic" comes from the Greek κέράμους "of clay, earthen" and κέράμος "things of clay". "Pot" and "pottery" come from the Germanic branch of the Indo-European language tree, in Old English pott and pottere simply meant "pots". And "porcelain" comes from a later language, Italian, porcellana "a type of shell" which I assume was adopted for the color and translucency of the final product. When I'm writing about pottery, I draw from my training in archaeology and art history as well as the practical experience I have as a potter. My working definitions are as follows:

• Ceramic: composed of or relating to clay.
• Pottery: an object formed of prepared clay and minerals, and chemically processed by controlled heat.
• Porcelain: a category of clay and clay products, a clay body chemically compounded to produce a finished white, translucent ware.

But, believe me, these definitions are not common to all English speakers. For example, during my lifetime, the word "ceramic" has taken on many shades of meaning. The academic community (fond of words of Greek and Latin origin) has given ceramics a somewhat exalted class oriented place. Sculpture, art, and objects made of clay are labeled "ceramic" if they are fine, beautiful, used by the elite, or considered to have great value, but are "clay figurines" or "pots" if they were used by common people or had more practical use. This carries over to modern art galleries, who like to show "ceramic artists" rather than "potters". However, in the basement of the archaeology building, all of these objects are "pots" or "potshards". In contrast, in the western US, a craft movement arose in the last fifty years that focused on low fired figurines made from slip clay (some a low fire porcelain) formed in molds . People could take the "green" figures, sand them, paint them with low fired glazes, and have them fired to produce a keepsake. This movement came to be known as "ceramics" and shops and classes emerged teaching "ceramic" processes and firing methods. My local clay supplier does about half their clay business with these kind of shops. Although this is a reasonable use for clay, and has been throughout the ages, the use of the term "ceramics" has become even more muddied. When people call my pottery studio to inquire about "ceramics", I have to question them about what they are looking for lest they show up at my door wanting to paint figurines rather than buy mugs, bowls, vases or my more art oriented work.

So, could you go into detail about the origins of the terms (Korean, Japanese, or Chinese?) that you are translating from? What do they really mean in modern usage? From my definitions above, you can see that I would consider Korean pottery and porcelain redundant as porcelain ware is pottery. And an article on Korean ceramics should include all Korean material made from clay - maybe even including ceramic computer components.  :-) A section on appropriate vocabulary in the article itself could solve some of these problems, and be interesting too. Thanks for responding. WBardwin 00:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Sinological Surprise

As I reviewed my understanding of Chinese, Japanese and Korean usage re. terminology for what we might term “ceramics” I turned up something that was a surprise. As a rule linguistic usage in this part of the world, for good or for ill, has been decided in many ways by the use of the Chinese written character. Thus it was for pottery/ceramics. There is a character for low fired brittle ware which we could translate as “pottery” and a character for high fired hard ware we could translate as “porcelain.” To my surprise however these two characters are not combined to indicate a third inclusive category. In other words the Chinese characters t’ao-tz’u, or toji in Japanese, cannot be rightfully translated as “ceramics”, but rightfully should be rendered as “pottery-porcelain.” Thus English usage that might in any way reflect East Asian usage should read “Chinese pottery and porcelain” or “Korean pottery and porcelain.” --Iwanafish 04:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. The western term "pottery", particularly with modern ware, has no implication of firing temperature. Pottery has been produced throughout history at ever increasing temperatures. In general, early pottery around the world was produced from residual, native clays which were rich in minerals and salts. This pollution of the clay lowered the firing temperature, so that these clays matured at fairly low temperatures and were quite brittle. Western archaeologists and potters call this type of clay "earthenware", i.e. I assume your "pottery." Some modern ware is still produced from this clay at low temperatures - for example flower pots/planters often exported from Mexico (usually labeled terra-cotta) and tourist and art oriented ware by native peoples in the American Southwest and Mexico. Higher fired ware (the equivalent of your "hard" ware or "porcelain") is usually distinguished in Europe/America between "stoneware" and "porcelain," based on the amount of mineral content still in the clay. As iron is the primary mineral which can be present but still allow a high firing temperature, stoneware clays have a measurable iron content while porcelains (natural and commercially formulated) have almost none.

So, on a personal note, I work in high fired ware, primarily in stoneware, although my clay closet does contain a supply of my favorite brilliantly white porcelain. So -- despite the color of the finished ware, would all my "pottery" be defined as "porcelain" in Asian terminology? If so, I can start to see why Asian contributors to Wiki would attach a low fired or cheap label to the use of "pottery." This correspondence is helpful, if long. Again, this type of info/comparison of terms would be useful in an article, even if we don't place it in the Korean "pottery" article. WBardwin 06:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi WB! We've been away in the south of France for the last couple of weeks, hence my silence. Thanks for the invitation to join the discussions about what terms we ought to be using to describe fired earth, I'll have a closer read of the discussions and come back with some comments. Regards, Nick. Nick 19:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Environmental history

Hi. I noticed your interest in historic diseases on your user page, and the edits you made to Columbian Exchange - you might be interested in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Environmental_history%7Cproposal for a WikiProject Environmental history]]. I'd appreciate it if you gave it a look and left any comments you might have.

Random Nonsense 22:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Deleting nonsense

Wish I could take credit for the quick delete - but I've been incredibly busy with work, a home remodel, end of school activities, etc. I was glad to see that at least User:Sarah is still watching my page and she deleted it for you :) --Trödel 17:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Tyrannosaurus rex pop culture

Since I cannot revert your edit without breaking the three-revert rule, I am requesting that you revert your own edit. Tyrannosaurus is a featured article. When it was nominated, a point was made to convert the preexisting list of pop culture trivia to prose and limit its size. A separate article for Tyrannosaurus in popular culture has been created for pop culture trivia like your Eric Garcia reference. Please move it to that page. If you wish to add this author, who I have never even heard of before, to the main T. rex page, please bring it up on the talk page of the article or of WP:DINO, rather than go against a year's worth of consensus, please. I'm sure the idea will be roundly rejected but you are welcome to make the attempt. Thank you. Sheep81 08:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Cranky? Having a bad day? I'm not attacking a featured article (and, please be aware that even featured articles change over time), just thinking that T-rex's last section reads awkwardly and contains an odd selection of examples. It looks like a random example or two was selected in several categories. A list format would focus on the distinct categories in popular culture rather than on the selected examples. And I thought the movie section carried too much weight in the paragraph, and so added Garcia's work (a modest effort but recently made into a cable film) to expand the written material section. That same flaw is on the associated popular culture article as well. Books are seriously ignored, I always think books are more important than movies, anyway. So, you can revert -- you've hardly offended me -- but being defensive of minor changes to this article is hardly the Wiki way. Best wishes...........WBardwin 08:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not me being defensive, I'm just the only idiot awake. I'm sure if I hadn't reverted it, five or six people would have jumped at the chance a few hours from now if not sooner. Of course articles change, even featured ones. But be aware that there has been a concerted effort to keep trivial pop culture references OUT of that section. If you look, you will notice that your "random example or two" are in fact very notable examples. Eric Garcia, however humorous, is not up there with King Kong or Calvin & Hobbes. Also be aware that the article would not have become featured in the first place had the pop culture section been in list form. Making unilateral changes to an article without an attempt at discussion, even when you have been informed that consensus is against the change is not the Wiki way either.

If you feel that books are underrepresented on the pop culture subpage, by all means add as many as you can think of... in THAT article. Sheep81 09:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

PS, if it were up to me, I would delete the entire pop culture section (from this and every other dinosaur article except Dinosaur) and make it a "See Also" at the bottom. I'd lovvvvve to do that! It would make my day! But consensus is against that as well, so I can't. I'm still requesting that you remove the Eric Garcia reference, by the way. It is indeed a minor change. But this type of minor change to that particular section has been vetoed roughly a thousand times. This is why I am adamant about its removal. Sheep81 09:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi WBardin!

I've reverted your edits, too, as we at WP:DINO worked very hard to get Tyrannosaurus up to Featured Article status, and it has been pounded into our heads that articles which use bulleted lists cannot be Featured Articles; all lists have to be converted to prose. We've had this discussion with the FAC reviewers before, and there is just nothing we can do to change their opinions of bulleted lists. As we would naturally want to retain the article's status as representing the best of Wikipedia's articles, we simply cannot use the bullets.

Another thing: I've never heard of the Garcia comic thing, and Sheep's right: it doesn't have the notability that King Kong or even Calvin and Hobbes has; we've used Summary Style here to present the really notable appearances in popular culture, something we had to do for WP:FAC. Please note that Sheep is certainly aware that even Featured Articles change over time; heck, he's made a bunch of changes himself. But the current edits don't tell s anything about Tyrannosaurus. There's a seperate article called Tyrannosaurus in popular culture which is full of fancruft and lists, and you're welcome to add that Garcia thing in there (because we've never worked extensively on paring that article down to the really notable stuff, and it's not a Featured Article).

It's clear you're interested in dinosaurs, and, despite this rough start, I'd like to invite you to join Wikipedia: WikiProject Dinosaurs, as we could use someone with your editing abilities, and it's clear you're passionate about the subject. Best wishes and happy editing, Firsfron of Ronchester 09:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Gentlemen (I assume), you are both being defensive and I think unnecessarily so. I'm no newby and I have worked on (gasp) Dinosaurs before, even on the (much earlier) T-rex article. I even created a dinosaur article on a new find in Utah. But your pop section reads like a list because it came from a list and so I formatted it as a list to see what was really in there. As written, it is not worthy of a featured article. It needs to be rewritten in a historical context, i.e. the initial popular imagery arising from the representations/models of early finds and how that image has changed (slowly, since about the 1960's if I remember it right). I have a book by Horner (I think), that talks about the popular image of T-rex, its origins, and errors. That would be a good start. Then, I would eliminate all "pop" examples, except those that represent examples of how T-rex's image changed over time, i.e. King Kong vs Jurassic Park. The list article needs a great deal of work, and is way out of balance, but "popular culture" is one of Wikipedia's biggest weaknesses. As for Garcia, he came to the top of my head as I was thinking about what else could be added, so he can stay or go. Sawyer is a much better scifi example. If you think your "army" of reverters would stand for it, I'll add the section to my to-do list. Best.......WBardwin 23:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Wbardwin!

I say go for it! (Not that you need my approval). As long as it's not in list format, I'm sure it will be great. :) Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester 03:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The consensus isn't that the prose is great. The prose blows. The consensus is that it shouldn't be a list and shouldn't include random non-notable cruft. Never said I cared if you rewrote it. Heck, if you had rewritten it, I would have left you a message thanking you! I don't care if its written better as long as it a) is not a list and b) only cherry-picks examples that matter. Sheep81 05:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)