User talk:Richwales/Archives/2011-10
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Richwales. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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. Richwales (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. Richwales (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. Richwales (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. Richwales (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. Richwales (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. Richwales (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 Tiderolls 04:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Original Barnstar |
| All the great work you have put into improving White Horse Prophecy. Your tenacity in looking for and finding reliable sources on a topic where very few exist is admirable. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 17:43, 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
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC 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)
[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. Richwales (talk) 04:57, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
- Fixed :) --Cole Johnson (talk) 20:02, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
New Page Patrol survey
 New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Richwales! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.
Please click HERE to take part. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:00, 26 October 2011 (UTC) |
This is what I was explaining previously
An admirable effort, but the individual simply hops IPs and forges ahead. Tiderolls 23:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
GOCE drive newsletter
Invitation from the Guild of Copy Editors
 The Guild of Copy Editors invites you to participate in their November 2011 Backlog elimination drive, a month-long effort to reduce the size of the copy edit backlog. The drive begins on November 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and ends on November 30 at 23:59 (UTC). We will be tracking the number of 2010 articles (and specifically will be targeting the oldest three months), as we want to copy edit as many of these as possible. Barnstars will be awarded to anyone who copy edits more than 4,000 words, and special awards will be given to the top 5 in the following categories: "Number of articles", "Number of words", and "Number of articles of over 5,000 words". We hope to see you there! – Your drive coordinators: Diannaa, Chaosdruid, The Utahraptor, Slon02, and SMasters. |
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 02:06, 29 October 2011 (UTC)