Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement/Archive 3

message: User:203.184.3.64 made several anon temple edits.  They were reverted wholesale.  I would like to talk a little about this matter. Tom H.
We can do better than wholesale reverts of edits that we don't like.  We must do better.  Am I to believe that out of anon's editing spree there was not a single thing worth salvaging?  This kind of behavior is just what will get us all a bad name.  It is biting newbies and it is protecting POV.  And it will cost us in the end. Would you be willing to go back and at least try to be a little accommodating of the anon's POV?  Remember our absolute and non-negotiable Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Tell me what you think we can do about this in the long term. Tom H. 19:34, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
Some of these reverts were done without any comment whatsoever.  In extreme cases, without the whole word "revert", even. :)  That's definitely rather strong:  if someone adds substantiative new text, there ought to be, at minimum, a comment about why it's better reverted, and ideally, some "talk" prior to, or simultaneously with, the revert.  On the up side, reversion isn't information-lossy, so if any of these can be re-incorporated later if there's a way to do so NPOVishly, the text is still available.  (As Tom's recently done on a revert I made, all credit to him.)  Alai 20:08, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You make (another) excellent point, I'll try to make this my own personal practice. Alai 21:37, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: Yeah, on when I look at the difference page there is actually a "rollback" button that automatically reverts to the last version. I think we admins get too lazy and revert, rather than edit. When the button is pushed it reverts to the previous version - and only gives "rv" as the message automatically. This is what I mean by "revert." -Visorstuff 22:23, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: I think your suggestions are excellent.  The only addition that springs to mind is perhaps in the case of "information-containing, but article-worsening" contributions is to revert, and to "snip" the significant added material to, I suppose, the Talk: page or a sub-page, with a view to later fixing/discussion/integration/rejection/other. Alai 02:09, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: None of the anonymous contributions you're referring to were really worth anything. It's not like we revert anonymous edits every time one comes up. I think everyone understands that just because an edit comes from someone we don't know doesn't automatically make it a bad edit. However, 203.184.3.64's were bad edits. All of the stuff was incorrect, repititious, or inappropriate. We've left a lot of good anon edits in almost everywhere. Just the bad ones have to leave. I think it's quite clear that 203.184.3.64 isn't very interested in making real, honest contributions. It's not the fact that the person didn't use a registered login — the edits just sucked. Cookiecaper 01:05, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: Aye, I didn't realize that the information that COGDEN added back had ever been removed, although I thought it was on a different page. I considered it repititious and therefore reverted instead of rewriting it after hunting down the quotes from President McKay. However, had I known, I probably still would have reverted it. So my posting this doesn't really show anything except that I don't have Temple garment (Mormonism) on my Watchlist. :) Cookiecaper 03:52, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: January 28, 2005 anon Temple edits

message: The best ways I know of to Feed the Newbies:
*Retain at least a tiny portion of their contributions. Retaining even 5% of an anon's edits provides significant feeding.  Anons want to know that they can really edit the Wikpedia and make a difference.
*Go to their anon talk page and leave a message of gratitude and encouragement.  Since it is an anon talk page, always put it in a heading under one of the article names they edited, (preferably wikified).  Even for an anon, this will pop up as a new message.  Not a sure-fire way to contact them, but the worth of a soul is worth the price of a few misses.
*Resist reverting if possible.  Imagine if we had reverted John Hamer's massive edits of Golden Plates, not recognizing them as high-quality edits.
Any other ideas? Tom H. 23:26, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
:I think your suggestions are excellent.  The only addition that springs to mind is perhaps in the case of "information-containing, but article-worsening" contributions is to revert, and to "snip" the significant added material to, I suppose, the Talk: page or a sub-page, with a view to later fixing/discussion/integration/rejection/other. Alai 02:09, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: None of the anonymous contributions you're referring to were really worth anything. It's not like we revert anonymous edits every time one comes up. I think everyone understands that just because an edit comes from someone we don't know doesn't automatically make it a bad edit. However, 203.184.3.64's were bad edits. All of the stuff was incorrect, repititious, or inappropriate. We've left a lot of good anon edits in almost everywhere. Just the bad ones have to leave. I think it's quite clear that 203.184.3.64 isn't very interested in making real, honest contributions. It's not the fact that the person didn't use a registered login — the edits just sucked. Cookiecaper 01:05, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: Aye, I didn't realize that the information that COGDEN added back had ever been removed, although I thought it was on a different page. I considered it repititious and therefore reverted instead of rewriting it after hunting down the quotes from President McKay. However, had I known, I probably still would have reverted it. So my posting this doesn't really show anything except that I don't have Temple garment (Mormonism) on my Watchlist. :) Cookiecaper 03:52, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The Proper Care and Feeding of Anons

message: I'm cleaning up the project page - so I'll put some items here, since "discussion" should not take place on the project page. Here are a few items: 
===Links===
*Talk:Mormon (society)#Links — Should we require that articles with links to sites unfriendly to Mormonism (such as the section Opposing Views at The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) be accompanied by links to sites that make counter-claims (such as the section LDS apologetics and responses to critics at The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints)? Please comment. Cookiecaper 23:19, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Front page miscs

message: *Talk:Mormon (society)#Links — Should we require that articles with links to sites unfriendly to Mormonism (such as the section Opposing Views at The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) be accompanied by links to sites that make counter-claims (such as the section LDS apologetics and responses to critics at The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints)? Please comment. Cookiecaper 23:19, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Links

message: *Nauvoo Temple - not to be confused with the Nauvoo Illinois Temple. Cool Hand Luke (Communicate!) 00:42, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Nauvoo Temple discussion

message: *Wikipedia:Latter Day Saint Collaboration of the week: Do you guys think we should have one of these? It'd be similar to the Gaming Collaboration of the week. I'm for it; not a lot is getting done and this would give everyone a common thing to focus on. Comments? Cookiecaper 03:27, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Collaboration of the...

message: These articles need to be worked on — please feel free to add to this list! --John Hamer 02:27, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Articles To Do

message: These articles have been renamed, combined, and/or re-edited and can be reviewed and expanded: --John Hamer 02:27, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Articles To Review