User talk:ChristTrekker/Archive 6

Enjoying some of your userboxes. Thanks for making them.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Userboxen

Hey, I just wanted to say thanks for your creative (and true) userboxes! I just shamelessly swiped two of them for my own userpage. --Andrew (User:90) (talk) 18:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

☺‼ From a quick glance at your userboxes, it appears we have a fair bit in common. ⇔ ChristTrekker 18:39, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ichthus: January 2012

ICHTHUS

January 2012

In this issue...

Ichthus is the newsletter of Christianity on Wikipedia • It is published by WikiProject Christianity
For submissions contact the Newsroom • To unsubscribe add yourself to the list here

Notification of meta templates deletion

Hi, just to inform you, a few of the political parties meta data templates you created are being nominated for deletion. Please see the discussion here. Thanks, Zangar (talk) 12:00, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of former lakes of Minnesota

Hallo ! My utmost apologies - you are quite right I neglected to see the history behind this; will double-check where necessary to see if it really is a typo ! my fault ! And thank you for pointing that out to meEugene-elgato (talk) 16:18, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also I probably should do that a little more also - mostly neglect it for all the typos i correctEugene-elgato (talk) 16:52, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Sean Keith

The article Sean Keith has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, all newly created biographies of living persons must have at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 19:27, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User pages

I wasn't even aware of that category being there, and it took me awhile to figure out where it came from. Having done that, I deleted it. So your deletion was correct, but your approach was incorrect. Unless someone has something extremely gross or vile or otherwise rule-violating on their page, don't mess with it yourself - ask the user first. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:00, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was systematically fixing a category tree. It's an implementation detail that scatters category information amongst multiple pages. If the linkages were all maintained from the category page (another possible implementation), you'd never have noticed. Maybe in the future you could not subst user templates, so the problem wouldn't occur at all. I'm sorry my actions seems to have created such offense—it certainly wasn't intended or expected to. I don't like people touching my user pages either, but if I made an actual mistake that is affecting things outside my page, I'd be thankful for someone to just fix it. My goal is to make Wikipedia better. ⇔ ChristTrekker 14:06, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would take a lot more than that to offend me. Just be aware that I am on several dozen other editors' watchlists, for one reason or another, so there were any number of them waiting to pounce on it. :) I generally don't rubber-stamp copy others' user boxes, I design my own, sometimes based on someone else's. I might have done that in this case also, and somehow the categorization slipped past me. If something like this comes up in future, just let me know, and I'll take care of it. :) P.S. The reason I design my own is partly just to learn how, and partly because I find the proliferation of "this user" to be pretentious. This user never refers to itself in third-person. (Or hardly ever.) :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:44, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I guess I've learned that a little extra courtesy goes a long ways. BTW, I hate the "this user" bit as well, and found a way around it. You might take a look at how I do my userboxes. Hopefully it will catch on. ⇔ ChristTrekker 13:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I saw. Pretty nifty. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:28, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relationship Status userbox

Good job on that set of userboxes!! I saw in on page patrol today

KoshVorlon. Angeli i demoni krushili nado mnoj... 18:35, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks‼ What's page patrol? ⇔ ChristTrekker 19:30, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

.... Have you thought of adding a relationship status of "it's complicated" like facebook? KoshVorlon. Angeli i demoni krushili nado mnoj... 19:24, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great idea! Done. ⇔ ChristTrekker 19:30, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Page patrol is this If you go to this page and have his vandalism tool, you can see recent changes and roll them back if they're vandal or test edits!

KoshVorlon. Angeli i demoni krushili nado mnoj... 19:48, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UnicodeSymbol

I replied at User talk:ChristTrekker/UnicodeSymbol. -DePiep (talk) 17:02, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

🔔 listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 🔔. Since you had some involvement with the 🔔 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). The Banner talk 09:11, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve Barchowsky Fluent Handwriting

Hi, I'm Anne Delong. ChristTrekker, thanks for creating Barchowsky Fluent Handwriting!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please find reliable sources not connected with the company that verify the information in your article. Thanks, and good luck with your editing. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Disambiguation link notification for May 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited American Heritage Girls, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Big Idea (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TemplateData is here

Hey ChristTrekker

I'm sending you this because you've made quite a few edits to the template namespace in the past couple of months. If I've got this wrong, or if I haven't but you're not interested in my request, don't worry; this is the only notice I'm sending out on the subject :).

So, as you know (or should know - we sent out a centralnotice and several watchlist notices) we're planning to deploy the VisualEditor on Monday, 1 July, as the default editor. For those of us who prefer markup editing, fear not; we'll still be able to use the markup editor, which isn't going anywhere.

What's important here, though, is that the VisualEditor features an interactive template inspector; you click an icon on a template and it shows you the parameters, the contents of those fields, and human-readable parameter names, along with descriptions of what each parameter does. Personally, I find this pretty awesome, and from Monday it's going to be heavily used, since, as said, the VisualEditor will become the default.

The thing that generates the human-readable names and descriptions is a small JSON data structure, loaded through an extension called TemplateData. I'm reaching out to you in the hopes that you'd be willing and able to put some time into adding TemplateData to high-profile templates. It's pretty easy to understand (heck, if I can write it, anyone can) and you can find a guide here, along with a list of prominent templates, although I suspect we can all hazard a guess as to high-profile templates that would benefit from this. Hopefully you're willing to give it a try; the more TemplateData sections get added, the better the interface can be. If you run into any problems, drop a note on the Feedback page.

Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:04, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SGI templates

Hello, I was working a bit on cleaning up some of the Silicon Graphics related articles (COI: I worked there a bit long ago). I added a navigation template {{Silicon Graphics}} but then realized that you had created one {{SGI computer timeline}} which is sort of cool but was not really updated from 2008. Also complicated since sometimes the same product brand name was used for very different products (like all the Altix variants) and other times different names were used for the same product sold in different colored boxes for different markets (e.g. SGI Challenge M, or SGI Prism etc.). Perhaps both might be useful? One problem is that some technology articles like XFS do not fit on a timeline, so maybe there is a place for both? Let me know if you have any opinions. Thanks. W Nowicki (talk) 20:50, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think registration should be mandatory to edit articles? Unfair for those who won't log in!

Is it so we can replace IPs with usernames to prevent hacking? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.28.219 (talk) 16:55, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you won't log in, too bad. Your choice. Creating an account and logging in to edit is not a hard thing. I have a feeling the negative edits by anonymous editors outweigh the positive contributions. (Of course, I may be wrong.) I can't think of many good reasons to allow non-attributable edits, when the capability to do so opens the door to so big a potential for abuse. ⇔ ChristTrekker 17:05, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scouting in Nebraska ‎

We need better sources than Facebook. See WP:SELFSOURCE. -- Gadget850^talk 22:19, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Small caps, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Greek (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:01, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Young Constitutionalists for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Young Constitutionalists is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Young Constitutionalists until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

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. Dougweller (talk) 11:43, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SPAMMING Original Research

Hi, you appear to be spamming your original research across articles related to the Constitution Party, and your original research is changing the word used by cited sources to a word that is not found in those sources. Please stop. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:39, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rather, objection to the sources' pejorative usage of terminology.^[1] Show me a source from someone involved in it. To consistently use the terminology of those who might be seen as opponents over the terminology used by those involved in the subject itself displays bias, and not WP:NPOV. Three of the five sources consistently cited are Southern Poverty Law Center, Huffington Post, and Salon Magazine, all well-known for left-wing positions, such as equating patriotism with "potential domestic terrorist". ⇔ ChristTrekker 16:52, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Emphatically, I don't care if the sources describe the party as a hangout for jaundice patients. I don't care. All I care about is that our articles' description of the party reflects the description found in the things that Wikipedia calls a "reliable source". Instead of venting about sources that say "theocratic" go try to find rebuttal sources and I'll be glad to look at them too. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:43, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem there is that the sources most likely to rebut are the organizations that are the subject of the articles, which are not deemed WP:RS for themselves. So WP ends up with articles that are mischaracterizations of the subjects it covers. ⇔ ChristTrekker 16:52, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't really studied WP:RS it would seem. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:16, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it has been awhile since I've read it thoroughly myself, and it's probably changed somewhat. Usually I just see lots of editors saying that 3rd-party sources good, self-published sources bad. Also, in light of WP:NPOV, shouldn't editors be cautious when applying a source's terminology when the source has a known bias? WP's own bias toward verifiability, not truth is sometimes very unsettling. ⇔ ChristTrekker 17:30, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Theonomy vs. Theocracy". To begin with, we need to make a delineation between "theonomy" and "theocracy." The secularists in the mainstream media […] constantly smear Christians who choose to exercise their right to participate in the political process as "theocrats" who want to turn America into a "theocracy." Although they seldom define just what they mean by this, the mental image communicated to the reader is often one of women in burkas, and priests/politicians with AK-47s. If this top-down, authoritarian, reign of power was what Christians had in mind when they spoke of obeying God's law, I would welcome the alarms being sounded by the Sam Harrises of the world. But just because the Muslim variety of theocracy is the most visible and vocal in the world, doesn't mean that it is the correct one. When American Vision speaks of "theonomy," or God's law, you can rest assured that we do not mean "theocracy" in the sense described above. In fact, a true theocracy is only possible when a nation is truly theonomic. In other words, God's law cannot govern a nation (theocracy) where God's law does not rule in the hearts of the people (theonomy). A theonomic approach to all of life by all of the citizens of a nation will, by definition, be a theocracy. This can never be a top-down hand of oppression, but must always be a bottom-up, from the heart, obedience. The critics rely on this negative idea of an oppressive theocracy to make their case against theonomy, yet can never cite a direct quote from theonomic writers who actually advocate a top-down method of civic oppression and submission. [Emphasis added]

Solution to AfD of Constitution Party state pages

Hello. Please take a look at what Dennis Bratland did for the Constitution Party of Washington's state Wiki page. He went to HighBeam.com and either bought a subscription or signed up for their free 7-day trial. Then, he searched for, found, and posted over a dozen newspaper and magazine references that he found onto the page. This satisfied the AfD originator, "User: Ad Orientem," and he has since withdrawn CPoW from the list. (you can read the comments about this on the AfD page) The Constitution Party of West Virginia is trying to organize a team to perform this task on the rest of the CP state pages to save them. If you can help, would you please send an email to correspondence@cpwva.org? Thank you, and God Bless! - Lexington62 (talk) 23:04, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

🗾 listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 🗾. Since you had some involvement with the 🗾 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. The ChampionMan 1234 11:07, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits at duodecimal

In https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Duodecimal&diff=prev&oldid=623078885 , are you sure those are the correct Unicode characters? I see the previous characters, but those display as a generic charactermap for me. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:10, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very few fonts have them at this time. ⇔ ChristTrekker 19:02, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion regarding Template:Rating

Hi! I noticed from the template's talk page history that you seemed like an involved editor there who may have an opinion on a discussion going on at WP:ALBUMS about rendering ratings. Would you care to weigh in here? Dan56 (talk) 06:53, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[1] "Theonomy vs. Theocracy". To begin with, we need to make a delineation between "theonomy" and "theocracy." The secularists in the mainstream media […] constantly smear Christians who choose to exercise their right to participate in the political process as "theocrats" who want to turn America into a "theocracy." Although they seldom define just what they mean by this, the mental image communicated to the reader is often one of women in burkas, and priests/politicians with AK-47s. If this top-down, authoritarian, reign of power was what Christians had in mind when they spoke of obeying God's law, I would welcome the alarms being sounded by the Sam Harrises of the world. But just because the Muslim variety of theocracy is the most visible and vocal in the world, doesn't mean that it is the correct one. When American Vision speaks of "theonomy," or God's law, you can rest assured that we do not mean "theocracy" in the sense described above. In fact, a true theocracy is only possible when a nation is truly theonomic. In other words, God's law cannot govern a nation (theocracy) where God's law does not rule in the hearts of the people (theonomy). A theonomic approach to all of life by all of the citizens of a nation will, by definition, be a theocracy. This can never be a top-down hand of oppression, but must always be a bottom-up, from the heart, obedience. The critics rely on this negative idea of an oppressive theocracy to make their case against theonomy, yet can never cite a direct quote from theonomic writers who actually advocate a top-down method of civic oppression and submission. [Emphasis added]

[1]

Cookie