This is an archive of past discussions with User:Hydrangeans. 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.
Awarded for supreme diplomacy going above and beyond in the article Book of Mormon to reconcile an edit war in a NPOV way. Thanks for cooling me down and walking me off the ledge. Epachamo (talk) 02:28, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Yo
Thanks for listening to the concerns I had about the Mormonism and Polygamy article, it would have been nice if we'd gotten more feedback from other editors but thanks for listening. Maerlon0 (talk) 20:06, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for this heads up. I'll admit, I'm a little surprised at the notion by the notion that one might mistakenly think Wikipedia "personally" considers a text sacred. After all, while reading Gutjahr's The Book of Mormon: A Biography, I don't get the impression that he thinks of the book as sacred to him. But that's a digression on my part; anyway, the quibble is not between either of us, but rather between my personality—I like granular specificity, even the difference between commentary (which a tradition might deem religious text) and scripture (which a tradition might deem sacred text)—and apparent Wikipedia convention, and I'm not one to make further stir over this. Thanks for your patience with me in those edits. Hydrangeans (talk) 19:08, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your time and kind words, Rachel Helps (BYU). I definitely welcome editorial suggestions for improvement! I've learned a lot about Wikipedia since co-creating the page and can understand the potential for improvement. With life pretty busy, though, I might be unable to promptly integrate suggestions. Hydrangeans (talk) 22:12, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
According to WP:LEAD, you don't need in-line citations for information in the lead of the page that is cited in the body of the page. This is just a Wikipedia style thing. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 15:50, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
Reversion of Brigham Young
“Rival organizations” are organizations that separate from another organization and speak against that original organization. Indeed, the correct term, by definition, is “apostate organizations”, but I recognize that it would be too much for modern, sensitive readers. “Other denominations” in the context that it’s used suggests that they are simply divisions or branches of the original church, and not groups that left in disagreement, which creates an incorrect perception.
I wonder if you may be misunderstanding the meaning of "denomination." A different denomination is not a different branch of a church; it is a different church entirely. Denominational schism itself implies they separated due to disagreements, but it says so while maintaining an appropriate encyclopedic distance and neutrality.
I encourage you to bear in mind that Wikipedia strives to be encyclopedic and represent a neutral perspective. If pages on topics related to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints were to describe other denominations in the Latter Day Saint movement as "apostate," then what's to stop pages about, say, Community of Christ topics from referring to the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as an "apostate organization"? I hope you can see how that would be inappropriate on an online encyclopedia that strives to be neutral. Hydrangeans (talk) 15:25, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hey! I noticed that you managed to link to 2 different sections in your edit summary. May I ask how you did this as I don't know how one does this and I think it would be very useful. ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654515:17, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Editor's Barnstar
Someone was wondering about how much value WikiEd editors add to the encyclopedia. While suggesting that WikiEd gets a bad rap I came across Margarito Bautista and see you remain active in editing. I'm glad we have you as part of the Wikipedia community. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:24, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
@Doug Weller After rereading the page (excepting the notes, which are predominantly quotations), I would say that to the best of my knowledge, on the Book of Mormon page, uses of Latter-day Saint (hyphenated with a lowercase d) on the page consistently refer specifically to adherents, institutions, or elements of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) and uses of Latter Day Saint (no hyphen, and with an uppercase D) consistently refer to the adherents, institutions, or elements of the Latter Day Saint movement more generally.
By my reading of the Manual of Style page on Latter Day Saint movement terminology, I realize that some of the uses of Latter Day Saint on the Book of Mormon page don't strictly fit the recommendations of the page, but I'm not sure if there's much choice, because MOS:LDS's directions have blindspots that leave out various Latter Day Saint denominations and make effective short reference very difficult.
A tl;dr (shortened version) of what I have written in the paragraphs below: the way MOS:LDS is written, both Mormon and Latter Day Saint are apparently incorrect as a pan-denominational referent, but the alternative would seem to be replacing each instance of Latter Day Saint (no hyphen, uppercase D) with a laborious list all relevant denominations, and the usefulness of doing so is lost on me. As such, I grant that some uses of Latter Day Saint as a pan-denominational reference on the Book of Mormon page do not strictly fir the directions of MOS:LDS, but I am not sure what other option there is, given the variety of denominations which use the Book of Mormon as scripture and MOS:LDS's lack of recognition of denominations outside the "Rocky Mountain" and "Prairie" traditions.
_____
One of the directions states that when referring to matters postdating Joseph Smith, Mormon should be used only "In reference to the culture of Latter Day Saint movement organizations originating in Utah," as well as in reference to the Salt Lake City-based church. So that excludes Community of Christ and the Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite), the second- and third-largest denominations, neither of which originated from Utah (Community is headquartered in Missouri; the Church of Jesus Christ came together in Pennsylvania), which means MOS:LDS would discourage using Mormon as a pan-denominational reference when speaking about the general religious readership of the Book of Mormon.
However, another direction on the MOS:LDS page discourages using Latter Day Saint as pan-denominational reference as well, instructing editors to "not use the form of the term with an upper-case D to designate generic adherents across the pan-denominations" and instead directing editors to "use a term appropriate to an individual's distinctive denomination or group". However, that is assuming the article refers to individuals. Frequently on the Book of Mormon page, there is a need to refer to the book's religious adherent readership generally and not as individuals. (For example, in the first sentence of the lead, or in the teachings section, or in the Greater Latter Day Saint movement subsection, etc.)
The chart on MOS:LDS is also of relatively little help. It follows a rather binary Rocky Mountain Saint and Prairie Saint approach that applies Mormon to the Utah church and Utah offshoots (but leaves out non-Utah offshoots, such as the Mexico-originating El Reino de Dios en su Plenitud, even though its members do self-identify by the term Mormon), but seems to also disallow Latter Day Saint as a term of reference for denominations in the movement beyond and including Utah.
When I imagine rephrasing, for example, the first sentence of the lead according to the directions of MOS:LDS, I'm not sure it would improve the page very much much, and I cannot help but think the page would become much less readable. For example, the first sentence of the lead currently reads as follows:
"The Book of Mormon is a religious text of the Latter Day Saint movement, which, according to Latter Day Saint theology, contains writings of ancient prophets who lived on the American continent from 600 BC to AD 421 and during an interlude dated by the text to the unspecified time of the Tower of Babel."
If I am understanding MOS:LDS, a reword to be completely within its recommendations would require the following:
"The Book of Mormon is a religious text of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), Community of Christ, Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite), the Church of Jesus Christ (temple lot), various schismatic Mormon fundamentalist denominations, various schismatic groups which identify with the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (RLDS, formerly Community of Christ), and other churches which, according to the theology of the LDS Church, the Bickertonites, various Mormon fundamentalist groups, various schismatic groups which identify with the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (RLDS, the former name of Community of Christ), some members of Community of Christ, and others, contains writings of ancient prophets who lived on the American continent from 600 BC to AD 421 and during an interlude dated by the text to the unspecified time of the Tower of Babel."
The "revision" (which would need to be applied repeatedly, theoretically every time the term Latter Day Saint is used in the current version) is clunky and excessively verbose. So while MOS:LDS does, if I understand it right, technically discourage Latter Day Saint as a pan-denominational term of reference, I hope this explanation makes clearer why the current Book of Mormon page does use Latter Day Saint as a pan-denominational term of reference. Hydrangeans (talk) 00:22, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
I hadn't thought of that—I suppose I get too much in the habit sometimes of thinking of policy pages as immutable. If you think it will be helpful, I'll consider copying it to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Latter Day Saints, maybe after some refining. Thanks for being so understanding and for the suggestion to share these thoughts more broadly. Hydrangeans (talk) 07:28, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
For your DYK on Zenock. As a member of the LDS church myself, while I don't study the Book of Mormon as much as others might, I found it interesting that the name is misspelled in modern publications. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654521:07, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Book of Mormon Page
Thanks for your message about the changes to the Book of Mormon page. I appreciate your response and I also appreciate the time and effort you put into Wikipedia. WmLDavis (talk) 01:52, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Minor edit to reduce redundancy (shortened "William L. Davis" to simply "Davis"), then combined two paragraphs
Hi (Redacted). I made a minor edit to the Book of Mormon page to reduce unnecessary repetition. Thanks again for all the work you've done on this page! WmLDavis (talk) 18:02, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
DYK for What Hath God Wrought: The Transformation of America, 1815–1848
Please see the latest discussion on this topic. "There is consensus in favor of including the article in the pseudohistory category." As both articles are primarily focused on the Book of Mormon, it makes sense to include the category in both places. JimKaatFan (talk) 23:50, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
That is a discussion for the Historicity of the Book of Mormon page. As the conclusion of the discussion states, "Arguments on both sides were weakened by the fact they often referred to the Book of Mormon — a separate article to the one under discussion." By that, different pages warrant different discussions. Local discussion [1] for the Book of Mormon page concluded against pseudohistory as a category. Hydrangeans (talk) 00:11, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Sadly the pixelated mess image was reinstated. We might as well not have an image if we use one that looks like that. But carry on. I will G7 the clear photo. Thanks for the article Bruxton (talk) 05:47, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
I put a fair amount of time and effort into finding a freely-usable image for the article and free-draw-croping out the clutter that surrounded it in the original newspaper because I thought that Wikipedia places value on accessibility for users and respectfulness for others' intellectual property. Thank you for letting me know what you think of my time and labor. Hydrangeans (talk) 06:11, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Thanks for uploading File:Boom Town (book).jpeg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.
To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 07:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Rusalkii}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
On 2 December 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ida Hunt Udall, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Latter-day Saint diarist Ida Hunt Udall(pictured) turned down a marriage offer from her longtime boyfriend because he was a monogamist, and she wanted a polygamous marriage? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ida Hunt Udall. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Ida Hunt Udall), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Hey, just popping over from the JS talk page. While I appreciated you laying out the history of that happened, I think it's a bit TLDR. I was interested in it and even I didn't read to the bottom. And I think it messed up the threading and indentation somehow, though I can't be sure because I'm on mobile. Anyway I just wanted to say that even the most logical rebuttal won't influence anything if nobody takes the time to read it. And yes, I realize this is the pot calling the kettle black. I struggle with TLDR myself.
My other bit of advice is to just stop responding to Horse Eye's inflammatory comments. Accept that nothing you can say is going to change ther mind about anything. I realize it might feel like you're being unfairly attacked, but sometimes the best response is to not defend yourself. ~Awilley (talk)20:40, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Reading on desktop, I haven't noticed any ill effects on the threading or indentation. I'm sorry to hear there is a problem from the mobile perspective, but I don't know why that would be the case or how to resolve such.
I appreciate your advice on length and responding. I admit I'm not sure what to do with it. It's hard to stay brief when talking about a kind of long series of events, especially since under such precarious circumstances, I wanted to avoid even the appearance of asserting without evidence. I also have the impression it wouldn't be appropriate for me to go back and revise what I wrote, even for concision. And when silence can be interpreted as consensus on Wikipedia, I struggle to see how my own silence would be much other than to my detriment. Even if it's not possible to convince one or another particular user, I hope what I write might be clarifying for current or later observers.
I will still try to think about how to apply your advice; your point about pragmatism is well taken. In any case, thank you for your cool head and your constructiveness across the whole matter. It's encouraging that although we disagree about the appropriate use of a particular book, we can still productively cooperate and collaborate on Wikipedia. Hydrangeans (talk) 21:07, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
I know I wasn't invited here and I apologize if my intrusion is unwanted but I just want to say that I appreciated (Redacted)'s well thought out responses and regret that I didn't have the time to devote the same effort to my own. I am deeply hurt that the impression I have given both of you is on an editor whose mind in unchangeable... I promise you it is not. Reading over the thread again I think a better path forward would be to have a conversation with (Redacted) about what exactly deprecation is and the process that is necessary in order to deprecate something somewhere else. Cluttering up the talk page was not necessary and definitely distracted from the core discussion on Bradie's reliability on which we were all relatively close in agreement. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:24, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
I disagree. I do not think a conversation would be a better path forward when we have already thoroughly discussed the matter. While granting you might have meant well, it is difficult for me to feel anything other than unnerved that you have "followed" me to this talk page and attempted to reengage. I ask that you please not continue posting here without reason, which I do not think there is, since our discussions on project and article talk pages can be appropriately held on those pages or have petered out. Hydrangeans (talk) 19:33, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
It probably is best for everybody to disengage from this for a bit. There's no urgency to resolve the Brodie issue, which I agree we're all pretty close on anyway. And I know I'd rather be spending time with my family for the next week or two. ~Awilley (talk)19:52, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
With all due respect you need to understand that "Deprecation can be proposed with a request for comment at the reliable sources noticeboard, and the restrictions are only applied if there is community consensus." That's non-negotiable, something can not be deprecated by local consensus or by implicit consensus. An RfC is required. I'm sorry you feel unnerved, that was not my intention and I shall not darken your doorway again. No hard feelings, happy editing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:58, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
DYK for Ammonihah
On 21 December 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ammonihah, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in the Book of Mormon, the city of Ammonihah kills Christians by fire as a deliberately twisted reference to a warning that spiritual death is like a "lake of fire and brimstone"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ammonihah. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Ammonihah), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
On 23 December 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Boom Town (book), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Sonia Levitin was inspired to write Boom Town after reading about a California girl who baked $11,000 worth of pies during the Gold Rush? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Boom Town (book). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Boom Town (book)), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
On 9 January 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Zenock, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the name Zenock is misspelled in almost every published edition of the Book of Mormon? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Zenock. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Zenock), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Replaceable fair use File:Frank O'Connor in The Wrong Road.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Frank O'Connor in The Wrong Road.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:
Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}}below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification, per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
Orphaned non-free image File:Frank O'Connor in The Wrong Road.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Frank O'Connor in The Wrong Road.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
I am well aware. I was the one who replaced the image after discovering a free image. I know the bot can't respond, but I'm just making it clear as a record that I want the non-free image deleted. Hydrangeans (talk) 18:28, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
DYK for Charles Francis O'Connor
On 13 February 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Charles Francis O'Connor, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that California rancher Frank O'Connor could grow Lipstick and Halloween in a greenhouse? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Charles Francis O'Connor. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Charles Francis O'Connor), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Well, I’ve put out 3 requests on various FA mentors’ talk pages - and a general request from on the FAC talk page - and still no one has responded. The last one I just did now, so we’ll see if I get a response.
Assuming I don’t get any response in the next few days, I’m going to still move forward with this FA nomination anyhow. I really think the article is there (many thanks to you and your sources!) and I don’t see any reason to wait around any longer. If anyone asks at the FA nomination page, we can explain we put forth a good faith effort to get a mentor but came up empty handed - and that the article should stand or fail on its own merits at this point.
For the nomination blurb itself, how does this sound? Feel free to edit to obtain a joint voice:
Complex, controversial, and consequential, Joseph Smith was one of the foremost figures in 19th century American religious history. His movement continues to this day, and as such his article continues to be of great public interest. It has been a work in progress (off and on) for over 15 years, but it has improved substantially in the last year.
This is a joint nomination between Trevdna and (Redacted): (Redacted) has access to significantly more and more detailed sources than Trevdna, although both nominators are willing to make prose or source edits as far as we are able. (Signed, Trevdna and (Redacted), timestamp.) Trevdna (talk) 04:54, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
@Trevdna If there's no response for a few more days—which would make it about a week since you started asking—I think I would be comfortable with you moving forward with the FA nomination. Perhaps I could add a few sentences to the Book of Abraham subsection, to give it balance with the adjacent subsections.
I should mention that I hope there can be some patience with my potential response times during the review. Over this and the next few months, my life may become much busier than the last couple months. But after so long, I wouldn't want to force you to wait until "after" (especially since I don't know when or if I'll get any "less" busy from hereon out). I'll do my best to be open about my time and to keep up with the review process.
I would suggest two edits to the nomination blurb:
1. "but it has improved substantially in the last year" ->
"and it has improved substantially in the last year".
(I think the conjunctive "and" gives off a better sense of progression.)
2. "(Redacted) has access to significantly more and more detailed sources than Trevdna, although both nominators are willing to make prose or source edits as far as we are able" ->
"Trevdna has contributed to the page for a longer period of time, and (Redacted) has access to a wider range of detailed scholarly sources. Both nominators are willing to make prose or source edits as far as we are able."
(You deserve credit for all the time and labor you've put in! You may well know some of the long-standing portions of the page better than I. We can let the reviewer know our respective strengths.)
Perfect, I like them both! And as far as response times, that's completely fine. Real life has to come first, and everybody gets that; my own personal life has slowed the momentum toward this nomination as well, TBH. If we get a lot of very difficult comments (which I don't expect) then we might have to figure something out - like mention to the reviewers that we need time to work through them - but I expect they'll be understanding.
Alright, still no response from anyone. I’ll pull the trigger and put it up for FAC starting tomorrow morning. Hopefully that gives us the weekend to respond to any early comments that come in. Fingers crossed! Trevdna (talk) 00:51, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
Oh! Wait!! Aaahh! I had totally missed Nikkimaria’s comment on consistent references from ~ a week ago back on the article talk page. I’ll try to find time to work on those this weekend, instead of nominating, unless you’ve already done so? I haven’t had time to review your edits since then in depth, but based on the number and descriptions of your edits I will say it appears you have not. Correct? Trevdna (talk) 00:55, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
@Trevdna Oh! Was Nikkimaria one of the FA mentors you reached out to? I hadn't realized, and now I worry I wasn't as welcoming as I could have been.
I did fix, I think, all the books listed in the References section, adding publishers, publisher locations, etc. I didn't comprehensively sniff out Harvtxt issues in the shortened references (I suspect most would probably be a matter of publication year errors), but I did catch some during other edits. Hydrangeans (talk) 01:09, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
They were, yes. So that’s a little of my mistake. I’ll post on their talk page a thanks for coming by and explain the situation.
Anything else I can do to help fully incorporate their comments? If it’s just a formatting issue, is there enough info available from the current refs that I could refactor it simply? Trevdna (talk) 03:30, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
I think all the comments Nikkimaria left on the talk page were about formatting. Harvtxt shortened refs that don't work—like, where clicking on the linked text in the shortened note doesn't jump you to the title in the references list—should just be a matter of a typo, like the year being off, or an author's name being misspelled.
Nikkimaria's other comment was a suggestion to separates explanatory notes from footnotes. Since there several explanatory comments (and since I don't know how to create explanatory comments) I rather hesitated to take on that big task and pointed out that mixing explanatory notes with footnotes is an acceptable format according to the Manual of Style. So that's up to you if you're interested in making a separation of explanatory notes and footnotes.
Howe's opposition to the term does not particularly matter, when he analyzes the entire Jacksonian period and its impact. Dimadick (talk) 19:51, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
First, it is not clear to me how "RR" (or a "double redirect") as you wrote in your edit comment, responds to the comments appended to the preceding edit.
Second, could you elaborate on why Howe's opposition to the term does not matter? The category page is not "the Jacksonian era," which we might agree Howe does analyze (even if he disagrees with the name). Instead, the category page is "Jacksonian democracy" and is explained as "a 19th century political philosophy in the United States" that "became the nation's dominant political worldview for a generation". If Howe's What Hath God Wrought objects to interpreting Jacksonian Democracy as a coherent, national, unifying political philosophy which expanded suffrage and instead reads it as the partisan term for Jackson's party and, if anything, a "philosophy" of westward white settler colonialism, then why would What Hath God Wrought be categorized under a page category about Jacksonian Democracy as a political philosophy? That seems as baffling as if one were to make a category called "Whig political thought" and add a page about Charles Sellers's The Market Revolution to said category simply because Sellers treats a coeval time period even though his interpretations and conclusions are quite different from said political thought. Hydrangeans (she/her) (talk) 19:59, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Joseph Smith FA nomination (trying again)
*Whew!* I think that's it for my review of the sources on the JS article! Took me a *little* longer than I had expected. I think it was needed though.
Are you still up for a co-nomination of it at WP:FAC? Your help would still be crucial, especially with sourcing - but if not, I completely understand. Personal issues always have to come first.
I know I've said it before many times (call me an optimist), but if Nikkimaria returns and says she has no other concerns, and if you are onboard, then I think I really will pull the trigger here pretty soon.
The only other thing I can think of at this point is, I might contact the 4 FAC coordinators listed ahead of time, to see if they have any specific thoughts, questions, or comments about this one. Browsing typical FAC articles, I notice that the JS article is several times longer than most, and quite a bit more complex. Trevdna (talk) 22:47, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
@Trevdna I remain interested in being of assistance as a co-nominator to whatever extent I am able, though I confess life is busy. Since it's hard to predict when an FA nomination would happen, it is hard for me to be sure whether it would fall on a span of good days for me, when I am relatively free, versus a span of very busy days for me.
By the way, your doing so much to bring the page in line with Nikkimaria's suggestion about efns is much appreciated from me. Thanks for taking on that detail work. Hydrangeans (she/her) (talk) 02:20, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Oh, and I should add: knowing when to expect an FA would also help me know when to get books from the library. Some of the titles I have since returned, because of how long it's been since I made the necessary edits (like Joseph Smith's Polygamy). Hydrangeans (she/her) (talk) 02:21, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
I am flexible about it all - this is a really big project, so I’m happy if we take our time to get it right.
Let’s do this: 1) let’s wait for Nikkimaria to respond (or give her a few days). If she gives a thumbs up (or doesn’t respond), 2) I’ll contact the 4 FA coordinators to see if they want to treat this one any differently due to its size and complexity. Then once we get response from them, 3) you can check out your books again, and when that is ready, 4) We’ll finally post this on WP:FAC and off we go!
Thanks a ton for your willingness to help. Seriously couldn’t do it without you. Generally the first few days after submittal tend to be slower as the reviewers take time to pick it out of the list and actually read it. Then once they review it, generally we have around a day or two to start working on their comments. If they see we are working on it, they won’t close it out / fail us. It’s only a problem if we become unresponsive or don’t respond to their comments. Trevdna (talk) 03:12, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
A Barnstar for your work on the Joseph Smith page
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Your tireless and very substantive efforts on the Joseph Smith page have been truly invaluable. Thanks for everything you've done and continue to do on it. The article - and Wikipedia - is better for your presence. Trevdna (talk) 18:16, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
August 2023 Good Article Nominations backlog drive
Thanks very much for the review! I will reply to your comments on the review page and integrate suggested revisions into the page at the earliest convenience and will do my best to not keep you unduly waiting. Hydrangeans (she/her) (talk) 22:18, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
The article Ida Hunt Udall you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ida Hunt Udall for comments about the article, and Talk:Ida Hunt Udall/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of UndercoverClassicist -- UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:02, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Thank you very much for reviewing the page and for patiently and thoroughly shepherding it through the necessary steps. The page is all the better for your feedback, and I'm grateful you felt satisfied with promoting it to a good article. Thanks again for your time and care! Hydrangeans (she/her) (talk) 13:26, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
The article Charles Francis O'Connor you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Charles Francis O'Connor for comments about the article, and Talk:Charles Francis O'Connor/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Vaticidalprophet -- Vaticidalprophet (talk) 06:41, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
I think all the issues brought up by NikkiMaria and Hog Farm are addressed.
Would you like to plan on us submitting the Joseph Smith article to FAC around the start of October? I'll have some work/personal things to wrap up before then, and it should give you a chance to check those books back out from your library before we get started. Trevdna (talk) 20:38, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
Sorry for not getting back to you sooner about this, or about the Missouri matter on the Joseph Smith page. My summer has had ups and downs. I think the trim is fair, given the apparent concerns about length from FA reviewers.
I will plan to request the books via my proximate library. I don't anticipate October being a good time for me personally, however, as there are multiple additional obligations I'll have during that month beyond what I usually do. However, I don't want to inhibit the review if you feel ready. I would like to be able to provide a supporting role in referencing the array of additional sources I can access. Hydrangeans (she/her) (talk) 23:12, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
No problem - would November work better? It's more important to me that you be co-nominator with me - and that it not present undue burden on you - than that it be done quickly. I mean, I've been "on the edge" of nominating for the better part of a year now, haha.
November would probably be better. Difficult to be sure, to be transparent. Unfortunately we're faced with the holiday season, but I don't want to force you to wait even more months, possibly another year. Hydrangeans (she/her) (talk) 02:44, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
I was wondering if I could get your outside opinion on a content disagreement over at Talk:Hugh Nibley#Peterson. Another user initially removed a statement citing UNDUE. I didn't think that UNDUE applied in this instance so I re-added the statement but updated the source to something that was more squarely in the independent and reliable category. The user removed it again, this time citing BLP (not sure how that actually applies) in the edit summary, but then in the talk page discussion seems to be arguing SPS or not satisfying RS. I would appreciate a third set of eyes the disagreement and on the inclusion of the statement. Thanks. -- FyzixFighter (talk) 21:26, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hi, I was hoping that we could find some middle ground on the BYU editors without crowding up other spaces. It seems we agree that they have a COI when it comes to the library/BYU in general but we disagree about whether this COI applies to the LDS topic area more broadly. Do I have the right? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:23, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
I have said on article talk pages what I have to say. I don't see what would be the value of recapitulating here conversations that have already been had at length with an editor who I have seen WP:HOUNDING editors, WP:BLUDGEONing by following editors around to talk pages that you fill with topics and replies, and attempting to out people with public claims about private identity. Hydrangeans (she/her) (talk) 13:39, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
My apologies then, I had hoped to be able to come to a common understanding regarding COI editing in the LDS topic space. Do you wish me not to comment on your talk page anymore or are you open to collaboration on non LDS topics in the future? (I have been enjoying your increased participation at RSN, you are welcome new blood even if we sometimes disagree) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:00, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
I prefer to minimize the amount of time I spend talking with editors whose pattern of edits evince wikistalking and harassment. Please don't comment on my talk page. Hydrangeans (she/her) (talk) 20:44, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Hell yeah for US history literature coverage
Just saw your work at Empire of Liberty and wanted to say how happy that made me to see! I've been planning to write articles about more American history books and seeing someone else doing the same is really rad. Generalissima (talk) 05:45, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for your encouragement, and good luck with whatever articles you have in the pipeline. In my experience, book reviews published in journals are excellent for sourcing nonfiction books but seem under-recognized on Wikipedia. Hydrangeans (she/her) (talk) 22:02, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
I like your essay on historical sources!
We had a few (very nice, though not always in agreement) run-ins on the Noticeboard, and I just wanted to say that your essay on some of the complications regarding the use of historical sources was a very interesting read that put some of the frustrations I have had into words, so thank you!
Your recent editing history at Book of Enos shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:53, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
DYK for Empire of Liberty: A History of the Early Republic, 1789–1815
I answer here to your question given that the RfC (Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RfC:_WCE-WRD/WCD) is now closed. I postponed the closure deadline because I intended to add other considerations and change my !vote to 4. Unfortunately, I have been busy and unable to follow the latest developments in the discussion.
Religions 2021, 12(12), 1035. The first 12 is the volume, the second is the issue, the third is the page number/article id. |issue= is for issue numbers, not issue titles. Headbomb {t · c · p · b}18:59, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
I see what you mean about issue numbers. Looking more closely, I can see the article is organized both in the special issue "Latter-day Saint Theology and the Environment" but also in issue 2 of volume 12, making the latter a reasonable citation.
However, I still disagree with placing the article number in the page range parameter. To the extent that |issue= is for issue numbers, |page= is for page numbers, not article numbers. The article in question is 15 pages long; "tq|page=1035" gives the impression it is a single page long, on the 1,035th page. The page range parameter should be left blank. Hydrangeans (she/her) (talk) 19:05, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi (Redacted). You've referenced "Thomas 2016" many times in Alma the Elder, but there's no corresponding cite in the References section. Could you add the missing cite, or let me know what work this refers to? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°21:37, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi, sorry to bother you - I wasn't sure who to reach out to about this, but when I was looking back at this you seemed to be one of the people who knew more about this user and their actions/bans. I just wanted to inform someone that they've returned to the Rosa Luxemburg article as seen here. Their two most recent contributions there are innocent enough, but I worry it's just the prelude to more disruptive editing again as there seems to be a pattern with them. Also, I'm not sure if it's still a thing, but this seems to go against their topic ban?
Thank you for participating. Did you know you're the first person out of the 140 or so that I've interviewed that's been involved with wikieducation from the student side as far as I can tell? Your perspective is particularly interesting to me from that angle. Clovermoss🍀(talk)12:14, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
I'm honestly excited that I came across you on my watchlist and got a chance to ask. There really does seem to be a lack of established editors who started as wikieducation students but maybe I'm not looking in the right places? Or maybe my gut instinct based on anecdotal evidence is correct. But if you have any suggestions, I'm all-ears. I'm trying to get a diverse range of perspectives where I can. Clovermoss🍀(talk)03:15, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
This is an interesting question. I unfortunately haven't kept up with the classmates from that particular assignment enough to know how many of us (or whether anyone else) still contributes to Wikipedia. Even myself, I've had months-long hiatuses at times. Your guess as to what the right places to look in would be as good as mine, I'm afraid. My gut reaction would be to guess that many Wikieducation students don't continue contributing to Wikipedia for the same reason that many new users bounce off or burn out: how precarious one's efforts feel when reversions are a couple clicks away, how grinding some of the conversations are as confusion gets met with dismissive walls of capitalized links, how hopeless one can feel in the face of incivility or mistreatment. I've wondered a little if this may be heightened for Wikieducation editors—could the ambivalent reputation that circulates about it prime editors to be impatient with student editors' contributions? But that's just a guess. Hydrangeans (she/her) (talk) 03:30, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
COI
Editors affiliated with BYU should not be doing WP:COIRESPONSE for other editors affiliated with BYU (Special:Diff/1212511023), especially not without disclosing their affiliation with BYU. In general, if you are going to participate in BYU COI discussions, you should disclose your affiliation with BYU. Otherwise, it's deceptive, because people will assume editors have no affiliation with BYU unless they state otherwise. (I have no affiliation with BYU. I have never attended the school, nor worked there, or at any of their affiliated institutions.) Levivich (talk) 00:36, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
BYU doesn't employ me, and I don't attend classes there. Years ago, I was there for part of my undergraduate education. Since then, I came out as a trans woman. Now I'm not a student at BYU. It was like a lifetime ago, and I don't like dwelling on it. I've considered getting into improving trans topic coverage, but there are so many editors who want to put deadnames in biographies that it isn't emotionally tenable. Writing about Mormon studies topics is something I can have more distance from. I never knew Rachel Helps (BYU) (or of the existence of the BYU Library's Wikipedian-in-residence) until after I wasn't at BYU, and I met her through Wikipedia. I really mean what I've said: I was surprised by how she and her students typically impress me, and when I revert them for gaffes they generally respect it. I'm sorry for having troubled you. It was my impression that WP:COI requires the disclosure of current affiliations and that past ones fall under the clause How close the relationship needs to be before it becomes a concern on Wikipedia is governed by common sense. Hydrangeans (she/her) (talk) 16:54, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Common sense is that if you put it on your resume or CV, you have a COI against it. (Redacted). Because you have been active in both defending BYU/AML-affiliated editors against COI-related accusations, and in reverting edits or otherwise making content changes, you should disclose what's on your CV. This has nothing to do with your religious beliefs, of course, but you have a professional COI with these organizations (and maybe with some of the individual editors, I don't know). (Redacted), you're educated enough to understand that you have at least an unconscious bias here (how could you possibly not?), it's not something you have distance from, at all. When you're defending BYU or AML, it's only fair that everyone else knows you (Redacted) or were a student there ((Redacted)), or have some other connection to these groups/editors. I also have to say "years ago" is not an accurate way to describe something that happened the year before last.
Other than this undisclosed COI thing, you're exactly the kind of person Wikipedia needs more of: (Redacted) from marginalized and underrepresented groups. There is a whole lot of US History on Wikipedia that is totally whitewashed colonial BS and someone like you could really help fix that, and AFAIK you'd have no COI issues as long as you focused on the history of something other than Mormonism. Levivich (talk) 17:22, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
I don't suppose I have much skill with conflict resolution, but in general I'm trying to be a bit more outspoken instead of just keeping my thoughts to myself, so I hope both of you can forgive me for budding in here. Obviously there's some background here I'm not understanding, so I'll try to avoid making a fool of myself. That leaves me the option of trying my best given the information I have at hand and the process of elimination.
Okay, so there appears to be some possible COI that Levivich is concerned about. I know from our past conversations that it isn't simply the fact that you are/were(?) part of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints or he'd have some problem with my history of editing articles about Jehovah's Witnesses. I would say that most Wikipedians would consider that aspect of this to be a reasonable conclusion given the reactions to certain questions asked at my RfA. That said, some people do appear to disagree with even that. But a strict reading of our COI policy doesn't really go with what some of the editor's in that conversation were saying or even what happened when I asked a similar question at COIN last year. I'd also say that most editors don't have problems with editors who're Catholic editing articles about the pope, the religion's history, etc, so it's reasonable to extrapolate that to members of other religions.
So the second piece of information I have to work with is that you were a former student at Brigham Young University. It's not exactly uncommon for alumni to edit about the institutions they have attended in the past, so I don't think that's what they have a problem with either. (Levivich, if I'm wrong, please let me know. I don't want to speak for you when you are perfectly capable of doing so yourself.) So I'm guessing that there's some sort of closer connection you have with BYU than the average person? I'm not trying to make you uncomfortable and given your comments above, it seems like all of your actions have been made in good faith. If you want to just move forward and edit other topics, that's perfectly fine. But if you do have some sort of close relationship with BYU, I'd suggest avoiding editing articles about Brigham Young University specifically. Technically direct COI editing is heavily discouraged but it's not completely disallowed, unlike undisclosed paid editing, which doesn't not seem to be the issue at hand. All that said, it seems like it may be a bit overkill to say that this applies to editing about the religion in its entirety? Again, obviously I'm not aware of all the specifics here, but I think my conclusion is reasonable given the information I have.
As for deadnames, they generally shouldn't be in articles per MOS:GENDERID. If you see an editor that's consistently going against that, I'd suggest starting a thread at WP:ANI. (Redacted), I know we haven't interacted much, but you seem like a wonderful person and I hope that all this isn't too disheartening. It's possible I'm projecting a bit, but in your shoes I'd likely feel a bit intimidated and I wanted to be sympathetic in regards to such a situation. And if you're interested in religion as a topic generally, I'd be glad to see someone else improving the JW topic area :) There's a general reliance on primary sources that I've been trying to address and a lot of interesting legal history too, so it might be up your alley? Clovermoss🍀(talk)00:46, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
I can't really say what it is because some of that got redacted up above by PF (I'm not sure if you can see it with the admin-goggles or if it's suppressed?) and I'm not sure exactly what's allowed and what's not, but rest assured it isn't religious belief, and it isn't just alma mater although it appears that way from the unredacted portions. :-D Although as a general principle I think editors should avoid editing articles about their alma mater, editing articles about one's alma mater isn't the issue here. I have been thinking about our discussions about religion and COI today, CM, but this is far narrower, involving specific people and specific organizations, not anything as broad as a religion or even a church. I'll just emphasize two things I said above, "if you put it on your resume or CV, you have a COI against it" and "Other than this undisclosed COI thing, you're exactly the kind of person Wikipedia needs more of". This is all resolvable by either disclosing, or avoiding, certain things. I don't want to intimidate anybody, I apologize for coming across that way. Levivich (talk) 01:17, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Levivich, whatever you said, it is indeed suppressed. A tip for the future if you're ever unsure is that is something is simply revdelled, there is a single line across the diff in question like this. If something is suppressed, there's a double line. Clovermoss🍀(talk)01:42, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment and calming influence, Clovermoss. I appreciate you helping ease the tension. I'm afraid I did feel intimidated, Levivich. I appreciate the apology.
I'm sorry for inconvenience and confusion I've caused by my apparent misunderstanding of the COI policy; as I told Levivich, my reading of WP:COI was that it requires the disclosure of current relationships. The examples in the policy page are about extant financial connections, like the business owner or the band manager. I'm happy to be corrected about my misunderstanding on this and to be mindful about terminated relationships as well.
If we consider terminated relationships to be conflicts of interest that require disclosure, then I think it's reasonable for me to avoid editing articles about BYU, as Clovermoss suggests.
I'm more unsettled by Levivich's suggestion I not edit articles to do with the history of Mormonism. Part of it is that I'm not sure what Levivich means by the terms. The LDS Church? The Latter Day Saint movement? And when? Was removing 21st-century primary sources that an apparent LDS missionary added to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints a case of editing about the history of Mormonism? Adding to the Zarahemla article that the group that thinks they can find Zarahemla in Iowa is entangled in a white supremacist movement, is that the history of Mormonism? Is Community of Christ a history of Mormonis,, like when I added Template:Community of Christ to Graceland University? On the other hand, if we take historical to pretty robustly mean historical, then I'm lost in a different way: what conflict of interest is it possible to have with dead people one has never had a relationship with?
All that to say that avoiding editing about specific organizations makes sense; but avoiding "Mormonism" is very broad. Right now I'm not making edits to Mormon topics broadly (haven't had time to edit at all anyway) because I'd like to resolve Levivich's concern to their satisfaction first. Levivich, if you're not sure how to talk about something without crossing into what's redacted, are you okay with sending me a Wikipedia email? Though I realize you said in a subsequent comment that this isn't anything as broad as a religion or even a church, so maybe you're not suggesting an avoidance of all history of Mormonism anymore?
As for deadnames, Clovermoss—yes, people can be reported. But ANI threads are exhausting enough when one doesn't have strong emotional stakes in it. I don't have the heart for it with trans topics. All power to those who brave such waters.
By way of aside, Levivich, while I appreciate a remark like you're exactly the kind of person Wikipedia needs more of: (Redacted) from marginalized and underrepresented groups, the compliment falls flat when you subsequently tell me to not contribute on Wikipedia about a different group that historically faced marginalization. And you seem too sensible to be implying I should contribute about trans topics instead after I said why I don't. Hydrangeans (she/her) (talk) 02:55, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
I can understand the inclination to not want to get involved at ANI, as it can be exhausting. My own foray into all that wasn't the most pleasant time to be had and I don't even have a personal stake in the matter. So, there's no need to be forcing yourself to edit in areas that will cause you undue stress and I respect your decision not to even if I wish the overall environment was healthy enough for you to feel comfortable enough in the topic area if you ever wished to change your mind about that.
I still can't speak for Levivich, but I don't think he meant his comment that way. Generally, there's a lack of Wikipedians with academic expertise in anything and we need all the help we can get. Your essay explains some of the issues we face in regards to that on this website. It's also quite well-known that Wikipedia has issues like this and while we're not nessecarily obligated to do anything about it as individuals, it definitely is something lots of people have spent a lot of time talking about. That said, thank you for linking said article. It was an interesting read and it's always worth considering perspectives I might not have considered before. Clovermoss🍀(talk)03:56, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
(Redacted), I am indeed too sensible to imply that you should contribute about trans topics instead. I did not imply, but was explicit in the sentence I wrote:
There is a whole lot of US History on Wikipedia that is totally whitewashed colonial BS and someone like you could really help fix that, and AFAIK you'd have no COI issues as long as you focused on the history of something other than Mormonism.
"US history on Wikipedia that is totally whitewashed colonial BS" is what I said "you could really help fix", which has nothing whatsoever to do with gender identity.
Also, I apologize that my phrasing "as long as" was not the best choice of words to convey what I meant, which isn't that you should not edit articles about the history of Mormonism, but that you won't run into any COI issues outside Mormonism because all of the undisclosed COI AFAIK is Mormon-related (which isn't the same thing as saying you have a COI against all of Mormonism or anything so broad). What you edit, and whether you choose to disclose and participate, or not disclose and not participate, is entirely up to you, and you'll have addressed my concerns to my satisfaction whichever of those you choose. Levivich (talk) 17:33, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for your elaboration and clarification. Sorry for my thinking you were implying I should edit articles about trans topics/trans history. I over-read into a connection between editors from marginalized and underrepresented groups and fixing the totally whitewashed colonial BS in U. S. history topic coverage (I thought you were implying I should help fix whitewashed coverage of gender/transgender history or something along those lines).
I do appreciate the apology about the phrasing of as long as and your describing the multiple ways to resolve these concerns, and for talking to me in this thread about the matter. Hydrangeans (she/her) (talk) 19:42, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
I value you as a member of this community
jps (talk) has given you a dove! Doves promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day happier. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a dove, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past (this fits perfectly) or a good friend. Cheers!
Spread the peace of doves by adding {{subst:Peace dove}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!
I want to let you know that in spite of what I think are likely some stark differences in opinion, I do think you have a place at this website and I hope you can find some collaborations which will give you peace and joy. If I can be of help in this, let me know, though I understand if my overtures are not appreciated at this time. jps (talk) 09:53, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello. Regarding not being pinged at this discussion. I just want to say that you weren't pinged by me, because I already pinged you on the Talk page of another article. I don't want to engage in over-pinging any editor. Hopefully that makes sense. However, personally, I prefer to ping other editors. I'm just concerned they would be aggravated with being pinged too much. Also, I appreciate the literary sources you posted. I have a sense they are good ones. Scholarship is always appreciated. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
I am sorry it seemed like I was upset with you. I should've threaded the conversation more carefully. I was more perplexed by jps, the OP in that thread, who was involved in the same article talk page. I wasn't sure what to make of jps starting a thread at the project talk page about the subject we discussed without involving me as well, but I didn't want to leap to something too immediately. But my vagueness left you with an impression I being confrontational with you. For that I apologize. Hydrangeans (she/her) (talk) 23:32, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the apology. And just so you know I wasn't overly upset. Also, I was glad you wanted to be included in the conversation. I guess I posted the above because I thought you were upset. Interesting how things go. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 15:05, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
A question
I am happy to see your 19:15, 13 March comment at WP:VPM; it helps to confirm my intuition of why you had always been more objective than the average BYU-affiliated editor (why I did not mention you at VPM or ANI). Hence, I ask for your judgement here: do you feel that Rachel Helps regrets her actions, and why? Please do not feel obligated to respond. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 07:13, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
Whatever the intent was, the way this post is written comes across like telling me I'm "one of the good ones", and on principle that's a sentiment I don't much appreciate.
I think Rachel Helps (BYU) does, in the best sense. I think her frustrations and confusions are honest but more importantly that her interest in improved policy adherence is genuine and is/will be efficacious. I think this based on the balance of interactions to which I'm apprised. Hydrangeans (she/her) (talk) 12:31, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
Association of Mormon Letters Involvement
Can you clarify your COI with respect to the Association of Mormon Letters? I gather that you were associated with them in the past, but do you continue an association with them? Are you presenting at their conferences, using connections with them in your work, etc? jps (talk) 12:27, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
My understanding is that I don't need to provide you information like that because it isn't relevant to articles I edit and is in any case beyond what's necessary for conflict of interest declarations. Hydrangeans (she/her) (talk) 21:31, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for bringing to my attention that projectspace edit from two years ago, in which I added information about a handful of Mormon studies academic organizations to the chart FormalDude created. I'm sorry for that not coming to mind. I disclose I've had interaction with the AML such that we'll agree I have a conflict of interest, and I won't contest reversions of my contributions on that project page. Hydrangeans(she/her) (talk) 17:44, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zoram until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
This is an archive of past discussions with User:Hydrangeans. 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.
.jpeg){kind=link}
.jpeg){kind=link}
