Jump to content

User talk:DonaldRichardSands/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Leonard R. Brand page

File:Leonardbrand.jpg
Leonard R. Brand
Compare
  • August 4 article: HERE
  • Current article: HERE

    Topics of interest somewhat related to Brand article

Articles for Deletion Log



Kenneth H. Wood

My first work with wikipedia was developing the "Graham Maxwell" entry. There is still more to do, but I am pleased with the work thus far. It is not perfect, but I have learned about Dr. Maxwell while preparing the additions.

My next project is to develop the entry on "Kenneth H. Wood." Dr. Wood lived an extraordinary life, serving the church from 1938 to the time of his death at 90 in 2008, sixty years.

More later,

DonaldRichardSands (talk) 01:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

American Medical Missionary College

I noted that the American Medical Missionary College (AMMC) was very brief. After commencing my study of this institution, I noted its background heritage in the Medical Missionary training school movement begun by the Edinburgh Medical Missionary Society and furthered in the United States by George D. Dowkontt in New York. John Harvey Kellogg seems to have gotten his inspiration for the AMMC from Dowkontt. Within the Adventist movement the development of Battle Creek College and the various benevolent associations also contributed to Kellogg's developmental thinking on the AMMC, I believe.

DonaldRichardSands (talk) 17:27, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Loma Linda University

After discovering the 47th General Hospital field hospital sponsored by the College of Medical Evangelists (CME), I began to look at the Loma Linda University history section especially the early years. Also, re: the 47th, Government photographs are usually considered public domain. This allowed the 47th picture to be posted.

DonaldRichardSands (talk) 17:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

The Modest Barnstar
Thanks for your recent contributions! 129.49.72.78 (talk) 16:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Graham Maxwell

Per your suggestion, I took a look at the Graham Maxwell article. I think you have done an admirable job there -- especially for a first effort. However, there are large portions of un-encyclopedic tone. The quote farm from his admirers is especially problematic. To a neutral reader it comes across as eulogic and promotional -- more like a fan magazine than an encyclopedia. Additionally, those large chunks of copyrighted text need to be reduced as a copyright problem. Even though you did a fine job of citing references and placing the text in quotes, the overuse of quoted material oversteps the limits of fair use. Those obituary quotes from family, friends and acquaintances don't belong anyway since as sources they are considered unreliable for Wikipedia's purposes. I noticed that there were similar copyright and POV problems mentioned in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Graham Maxwell discussion in 2006 -- but this new article is much better than the previously deleted one. If you can reduce the use of copyrighted text to minimum requirement and remove the "fan-type" POV language (for example, headers like "A Developing Scholar", "A Leader Among His Peers", "A Recognized Church Worker"), than I think the article will work well. Let me know if you have further questions. — CactusWriter (talk) 03:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Problem with comments

Hi, DonaldRichardSands. I am troubled by your statement here concerning your edits. I would appreciate you clarifying this. In particular, your comments

  • the work that I have done is dependent mainly on primary sources. I believe that rather than depending on other historians we should be doing original studies on the topics at hand.
  • I have no intention of simply restating what secondary sources have already said.

Am I misreading this? Or is it your intention to edit Wikipedia in this manner? — CactusWriter (talk) 09:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

DonaldRichardSands (talk) 13:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC) replies:

Let me restate this:

the work that I have done is dependent mainly on published primary sources. I believe that rather than depending on other historians, i.e. secondary and tertiary sources, I should be doing original studies of published primary sources on the topics at hand. This is my focus. I like secondary and tertiary sources which provide scholarly references. These lead me back to the best published sources.

  • I have no intention of simply restating what secondary sources have already said.

DonaldRichardSands (talk) 13:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC) replies: Are you misreading this?

Perhaps you are misreading the wikipedia policy. Let me restate this:

My goal is to study the best published sources. I define these as published primary sources. I also believe in being as objective as I possibly can, acknowledging that pure objectivity is impossible. However, it is not my interest to simply restate what others have presented in secondary or tertiary sources. I will leave such work to others. I have looked over the wikipedia guidelines on 'original research' and have noted that Wikipedia defines 'original research' as material which is not properly cited. Look over my work, almost everything I present is cited as having been determined by a published source. But, look more carefully at the published source I have cited. Almost all of them are, in my understanding, published primary sources. I believe that those who know best wikipedia's guidelines do not discourage the use of such published primary sources.


Or is it your intention to edit Wikipedia in this manner?

DonaldRichardSands (talk) 13:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC) replies: First, it is my intention to only edit my own work presented. I consider it discourteous to change (edit) other people's texts, or contributions. I would rather have a discussion with the presenter and rely on them to change (edit) their own contributions. I expect others here at wikipedia to treat me this way as well.

It is my intention to use published primary sources in my work here at Wikipedia. As I do this kind of work, I believe that I am strengthening the value of Wikipedia. I agree with all the policies of Wikipedia as they read. I do not agree with the way some people interpret the policy. I understand Wikipedia to be opposed to personal, uncited opinions as well as creating material that is self-serving such as personal autobiographies. I fully agree with the need for neutral studies. However, if the person being studied is highly regarded, the neutral sources may seem like fan material. Also, sometimes the available published primary sources do not contain critical material. In these situations, critical studies of the chosen individual is much harder to present. I believe that controversy should be presented, but usually do not have available to me the critical sources. Thus, my work may seem to be 'fan material' but this is incorrect.

Also, I am a strong supporter of the Wikipedia community. English teachers oppose the use of Wikipedia as a cited sources. This is because Wikipedia is a growing work. However, people developing formal historical studies can learn much from Wikipedia regarding their chosen subject. The best service that Wikipedia provides for such people is the providing of good citations.

So, to summarize. I have no intention of violating Wikipedia's policies. On the contrary, I admire the ideals espoused by the founder and leaders of this wonderful online enterprise. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 13:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

DonaldRichardSands (talk) 13:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC) replies further: I have no wish to edit what other people on wikipedia write. Some have suggested that Wikipedia is opposed to published primary sources because this calls for 'original research'. However, wikipedia's definition of 'original research' is assertions which do not have published citations. In my work, all I use are published citations. But, if you look over what kind of citations I give, they are almost always of published primary sources. It is my intention to help wikipedia on particular entries by providing the best published primary available. In this age of online archives the opportunity to strengthen are historical assertions are profound. When we have the same published primary sources available to us which the professional historian has available, I see no reason to cite the professional historian, except to acknowledge their help by providing references such as footnotes. I have no intention of removing secondary source citations given by others. That is poor manners.

There is one area where I need to depend on published secondary sources. Some historians have available to them documents unavailable to the general public. In these situations I must depend on their work. I will cite such valuable secondary sources.

In my work with the best sources, i.e. the published primary ones, I have actually been able to document errors in some of the best secondary sources. How does this happen? Well, professional historians often cover a very broad sweep of subject matter, and they do not have the time to double-check the information. This does not happen that much. But, I find it strangely gratifying to find errors in the works of historians I highly respect.

Anyway, my contributions on wikipedia are to provide information seldom published by secondary or tertiary sources. Others can do that. My contributions involve studying the published primary sources such as essays in periodicals by the person being studied, news reports in archived periodicals about the person, published diaries, autobiographies. It has been suggested that Wikipedia is against the use of published autobiographies of the person being studied. I have read the policy regarding autobiographies. The gist of the policy is that we should not present our own autobiography as wikipedia entries. To this I fully agree. I also note, that historically published autobiographies must be cited with special care because most people are biased toward themselves. This should not discourage the estimation of value put to autobiographies published throughout history. Rather, they should be cited carefully, objectively. Thus far, I am amazed at the value of historically published autobiographies. The historical insight provided allows the historian to delve into the life and times of that persons era.

Thanks for your reply, DonaldRichardSands. I am glad to see that your intent is to abide by Wikipedia policies. The relevant policy on primary sources is stated at No Original Research:
  • All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.
  • Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source.
  • Do not base articles entirely on primary sources.
  • Articles may make analytic or evaluative claims only if these have been published by a reliable secondary source.
If you disagree with this policy, than you are welcome to discuss changes at the relevant policy page or the WP:Village Pump. But until consensus is changed, every editor may only edit within those guidelines. — CactusWriter (talk) 22:41, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello Cactus Writer, thank you for your interaction. I find it useful.

If you have found sentences where I violate Wikipedia policy, please be specific, i.e. point out the specific violations. This will be useful in my learning the policy and in my further complying with the policy.

As I have looked over the policy you refer to I note this statement: "To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable published sources that are both directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the material as presented."

In all my Wikipedia work, I believe that I do this.

Do you agree that a new fact, derived from a primary source and properly cited is not original research? For example, if Letitia Youmans should mention the names of her children and these names can be found no where in any secondary source, it is still within Wikipedia policy to cite her mentioning of their names. This may appear to be the result of original research but, according to Wikipedia policy, it is not because it can be properly cited and is not an opinion originating with me.

Most of the work I do at Wikipedia adds to the body of knowledge via deriving of facts from primary sources. I believe that the facts that I present are obvious and not disputable. Yet, many of these facts have never been published by any secondary source, at least none that I am aware. The Graham Maxwell entry has many such facts which I have added with proper citations from published primary sources. Also, the American Medical Missionary College entry has several such facts which have never been included in secondary sources as far as I know. But these are indisputable facts. Why have they not yet been included in a secondary source? Probably because no one has been interested enough to do so. Wikipedia, because of its collaborative nature is quickly becoming the most comprehensive encyclopedia on or offline because of this opportunity to add new information with proper primary sources, i.e published and veriviable. Thanks for your considering of this dialogue.

I agree that Wikipedia does not benefit from uncitable opinions, analysis, etc. If you believe that I am not following Wikipedia policy on original research, you owe it to me to show me specific lines where I violate the policy.

Thanks for the help. I am DonaldRichardSands (talk) 23:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, DonaldRichardSands. I apologize for my late response to your query -- I've been busy for the past week -- "real life" does take precedence sometimes:). You are absolutely correct about unchallenged facts. Primary sources are perfectly acceptable for items which are obvious or not normally disputable. The extent to which a fact will be challenged will depend upon the subject of the article and must be assessed on an individual basis. This will often depend on the context of the primary source -- its historical context of the language used and whether there is ulterior motive or purpose -- it is the secondary sources (historians, journalists, biographers, etc.) which we use to evaluate that context.
For example, in our article about L. Ron Hubbard, there are very few primary source facts which remain unchallenged. This is because the secondary sources dispute much of Hubbard's own words and establish a motivation for his embellishment of the "facts" of his life. Therefore, the article is very strict about presenting facts "According to Hubbard" or "According to the Church of Scientology." As well as presenting the evaluation of those facts by reliable secondary sources. Hubbard, of course, is an extreme case. But it does provides a good example of how an individual as a primary source is not necessarily reliable -- and any "facts" must be presented with care.
Here is a specific example about your article on Letitia Youmans. You have presented her early life as dominated by a single "fact". The article states At ten years of age she had an experience which started her on her temperance vocation. And then it includes three paragraphs copied from her autobiography. However, this statement of fact is specifically disputed by a reliable source. In this case, it is best to present the fact as evaluated by the historian. You can use "According to Youmans," or "In her 1893 autobiography, Youmans recalled..." But then it is important that we also present the fact as evaluated and countered by her biographer. And, of course, the secondary source should be cited.
I hope this clarifies things further. — CactusWriter (talk) 20:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Cactus Writer,

Thanks for the analysis. Regarding Letitia Youmans, it seems you are not challenging what I have quoted from her as being false, but because it is presented as though this is the only influence on her interest in temperance matters. I agree that such a view would be overly simplistic. However, her pointing to an experience as a ten year old seems quite significant, nonetheless. The reliable source is quite thorough. I had not read it before. Thanks. As I looked it over, it seemed to me that the author derived much of his information from Youmans autobiography. Also, I could find nothing that challenged Youmans' ten-year old experience. The problem, as I see it, is that the quote of her ten year old experience stands alone. Obviously, there were other experiences unstated by her which also led her into her vocation. I look forward to your further thoughts when you are able to share them. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 03:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

  • I am writing this paragraph four months later. I began Wikipedia with a naive view of primary and secondary sources. And had not known of the designation of "tertiary sources" at all. Such is the depth of my naivity, some of which still lingers, I'm afraid. Cactus Writer, I appreciate your patience with me, and others of the more experienced community here at Wikipedia. I am learning to enjoy the use of secondary sources. :) DonaldRichardSands (talk) 13:08, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Bill of rights

The Law Barnstar
Thank for all your hard work on the Canadian Bill of Rights. Moxy (talk) 22:02, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Again - Thank you for your great additions. I Have a few books you may fine of use

side note: all my digitized books are listed at Bibliography of Canada and Bibliography of Canadian history.

You can do that if you wish

Yep you can do that --in the top right Corner there's is a tab that will allow you to MOVE the page. CLICK HERE.Moxy (talk) 04:15, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Lacombe, Alberta

Greetings DonaldRichardSands,

In response to your edit summary here, the two sections in the Lacombe, Alberta article did not get lost somehow. They were actually renamed by me here to more common and appropriate titles based on article convention and section content respectively, and were rearranged among the other sections to be generally more consistent with the flow of articles on other Alberta communities. I have since renamed and reordered again here. For a second time, I have removed the content relating to the Rams and Lasers as it was unreferenced and it was not explained how they were noteworthy. If you would like to re-add, I suggest creating a new "Sports" section and providing more information on them with references.

Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 05:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

    Hi Hwy43 Thanks for your explanation. I have no problem with the edits you describe. If all the documented research had been lost, I would be concerned. Rearranging the outline makes sense. The Rams and Lasers information does not originate with me, nor is it important to maintain. My interest is the documentation of pioneer, or early, history. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 13:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

four ~s

You only need to add the four ~'s at the end of talk comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8een4Tfor (talk • contribs) 17:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I can't quite figure out the context for this brief comment. What prompted this advice? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 20:25, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
The user is indicating that it is only necessary to sign with four tildes (~~~~) on talk pages. It is not necessary to sign every edit with four tildes in the edit summary field. The field isn't built to process the four tildes. Hwy43 (talk) 21:14, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I was misunderstanding that. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 22:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Canadian bios

Thats a bit of a hard one - are most fucked up bios are Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada/Unreferenced BLPs (ones missing sources) --- Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada/Cleanup listing (not all bios but all have big problems) and Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada/Popular pages a listing of the most viewed pages (again not all bios).Moxy (talk) 12
49, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to take part in a pilot study

I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to a short survey. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates only 5 minutes. cooldenny (talk) 19:09, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

SAU/LSU

Thanks for your work on the Southern section. I think you've improved it significantly. Care to take a look at the List of presidents of La Sierra and see if there's anything you can improve? I'm a bit tired of typing tables for now.. BelloWello (talk) 18:28, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

BelloWello, I am inclined to remove the tables and do a chronological series of lists based on the name of the school in its various eras of existence. I don't want to do such a major revamping without some feedback. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 18:37, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
That's fine with me. I based the tables after the ones in List of presidents of the University of Virginia, but I notice that the List of Presidents of the University of Maryland, College Park has the format I'm assuming you favor. BelloWello (talk) 18:40, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Heather Knight

I notice that you have a fair amount of experience with biographies, something that I do not possess. Would you be interested in collaborating in writing an article on Heather J. Knight, the current President of Pacific Union College? I did a quick search for sources and found a few: [1] [2][3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. Let me know, she seems to be one of the most qualified of our institutional presidents. BelloWello (talk) 20:17, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi BelloWello, yes, I would enjoy helping. I am away from my home computer at the moment and have less access to things, especially Adventist Archives and pdf files. How do you recommend we proceed. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 20:33, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
A further note. I am not really that experienced with wikipedia yet, but am learning quickly. I am working on a major essay re: Roswell F. Cottrell and have been using the Sandbox feature. I like the Sandbox because it is very much like a regular wikipedia article but the pressure to get it right the first time is missing. Perhaps we should start a Sandbox section for the Heather Knight article? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 20:36, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
That sounds good, I went ahead and created a sandbox stub at WP:SDA/Heather J. Knight so maybe we can attract some more collaboration from the Adventist WikiProject and get it going. You mentioned you have access to the Adventist Archives, would they contain anything of relevance to the article in your opinion? I'm currently looking around to see if I can find a good article to model it after but I don't seem to have any luck. Do you have any ideas for organization, etc.? BelloWello (talk) 21:03, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
We should follow Wikipedia Style recommendations. Also, I think we should aim for all SDA biographies to have the same look. I began to watch for such style with my work on George Washington Morse. Once we become thoroughly acquainted with our subject (person) the outline will take on unique features to that person. I wonder what the subjects (people) who are written about think of the project. If they like the idea, maybe they can offer a picture, etc. I will try to look over the Sandbox you mentioned. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 21:17, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
That would be great. I'm not sure how to go about contacting them so maybe you can take care of that? BelloWello (talk) 22:08, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
The Sandbox article WP:SDA/Heather J. Knight is developing. Do you have any experience collaborating with a team on a project. This is my first at it. Do you know others involved in the Adventist projects? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 22:34, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
No, must of my editing has been done individually. I invited two Adventist project participants that I saw have been recently active, perhaps they will be willing to help out... BelloWello (talk) 23:08, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
I am interested in developing an Adventist team. This would comprise at least two and perhaps as many as eight (or more) individuals who want to work together on things. i.e. wiki projects, other history projects, etc. The group would be bound by nothing more than common interests. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 23:15, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
My interest with Adventism is mostly limited to Education related topics but I'd be interested in helping out otherwise as well. It seems like that may have been the purpose of WP:SDA but that seems to have gone inactive... I don't know if you've seen this guideline, WP:ELRC, I bring it up because some of the external links in the sandbox are duplications of what is already in the References section. :) BelloWello (talk) 23:46, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I have been aware of the overlap but have not figured out how to merge the two. I have seen it done with Havnb or something.

Done for the night

I have to work on a project so I'm pretty much done for now, I'll be back online later and continue to make updates. Looking forward to seeing what you (and hopefully others) have accomplished... Thanks for agreeing to help with that article! BelloWello (talk) 01:01, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Heather Knight project

Hi BelloWello: I have almost done as much as I can do for now. The article is near ready for posting as such. I will leave the final decision to you. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 15:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I just came on for the morning. I'm trying to get the comments of a few non-Adventists who live in the Napa Valley before finally moving it to mainspace. I would also like to make a "Did you know?" nomination when we do that. I assume you have some sort of connection with the Adventist church (based on your access to Adventist Archives), would you mind contacting PUC and seeing if they're willing to provide a picture of Dr. Knight for the purpose of the article? BelloWello (talk) 17:49, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
I will see what I can do. (I teach religion at an SDA boarding high school) Have you studied wikipedia's licence protocol? Is a press release photo copyrighted? I have noted Cullen328 advice and appreciate his sensitivity and counsel. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 17:56, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Do you mind if I were to edit the text you added? Just to condense it a little more and hopefully address some of Cullen's concerns? I'm also might try to reorganize it a little.. As for getting a picture, I think 24 April 2011 (UTC)%0A+|Author+++++++++=+%0A+|Permission+++++=+%0A+|other_versions+=+%0A}} this is the form that would be used. Pretty much pictures on wikipedia have to be licensed for use anywhere cause everything on wikipedia is free. I don't think you can use a press release photo. BelloWello (talk) 18:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Feel free to change things as you see fit. I view myself as helping you on this. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 18:29, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Larry Geraty

What do you think of working on an article for Larry Geraty next, or is there another topic you want to focus on? I'd also like an article on Sam Leonor because, well, he's my favorite adventist pastor, but I'm guessing it would be hard to show notability... BelloWello (talk) 17:53, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi BW, the Geraty article interests me. Why don't you start a Geraty project much like you did for Knight? I will help. I did a quick check of info on Sam Leonor, I think notability can be demonstrated. :) DonaldRichardSands (talk) 18:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Also, you asked about another topic. I have been working on a Sandbox article about Roswell F. Cottrell. Your help is welcomed on that. You can find it at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DonaldRichardSands/Sandbox
DonaldRichardSands (talk) 18:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Sounds good, I probably won't have much time for it till the weekend, but I'll create it at WP:SDA/Larry Geraty. :) BelloWello (talk) 00:44, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
It does seem overwhelming. When I get that sense, I tell myself, "sooner or later this will be sculpted, or shaped, in a suitable way. Meanwhile, the basics of info are before us and most of what is left is shaping and citing (without getting confused :( ) Thanks for the kind words. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 19:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
I was aware that Geraty was a highly educated and honored man, but I didn't have a clue it went to the level that your research has uncovered. I will try to do more significant work on the article in the upcoming weekend and other times. Thank you so much for finding all the information. Working with you on these new articles is a pleasure. BelloWello (talk) 19:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

April 2011

BelloWello (talk) has bought you a pint! Sharing a pint is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a pint, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Cheers!

Heather Knight (educator) has been approved for a WP:Did you know and should appear shortly. Thanks for your hard work on that article!

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{subst:WikiPint}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Message received at 21:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, we did good. :) DonaldRichardSands (talk) 01:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK on Heather Knight

The DYK hook from the page we worked on, Heather J. Knight is currently in the quene and will go live on the homepage around 8 am eastern (New York) time. I may or may not be able to get on wikipedia then but if I can, I will try to get a screen shot of it. BelloWello (talk) 07:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi BW, thanks for the heads up. I will watch for it. I also got a screen shot of the article in Queue 1. I looked over the article as it currently shows and am pleased with the final look and read of it. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 11:14, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Heather Knight (educator)

The DYK project (nominate) 12:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Heather Knight photo

Hello The copyright holder (likely Heather Knight, PUC or the photographer) is the only person with the power to authorize use of this photo under a Creative Commons license. You can't do it for the copyright holder, and Wikipedia is very strict about copyright. I urge you to resolve this promptly, as it is likely that the image will be deleted. An alternative is a new photo. I already mentioned to BelloWello that I may be able to take photos of the PUC campus as I live in Napa County. Perhaps I could take a photo of her as well. Cullen328 (talk) 19:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Cullen328, Dr. Knight can release this directly to Wiki Commons, right? How does she do it? What are they steps? I have been in contact via email with her. I will encourage her to intiate the wiki commons ok. Thanks DonaldRichardSands (talk) 19:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
I have just sent a copy of the permission email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org DonaldRichardSands (talk) 19:24, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

If they accept the email, fine. If not, she can set up a Wikimedia Commons account, and upload it herself. She needs to certify that she is the copyright holder and select an acceptable Creative Commons license. Tricky the first time, but then easy. Cullen328 (talk) 19:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Could you explain how she can select the acceptable license. I think I need a step by step description to pass along to her, if needed. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 19:33, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Any license listed in the Wikimedia Commons upload procedure is acceptable. One of the licenses is listed as "preferred" and that is the one I use myself. You can click on each license to see its full terms and they are full of "legalese". If she holds the copyright, then any Creative Commons license will work. Please note that I am not a copyright expert. Consult one if there are any questions or doubts. Cullen328 (talk) 03:26, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Hey Donald, I came across User:Malik Shabazz/Requesting free content, it seems to have an explanations of the processes needed. BelloWello (talk) 22:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for this. I have sent an email rendition of a form to Dr. Knight and am waiting to hear from her.
Don
DonaldRichardSands (talk) 23:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

May 2011

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at BelloWello's talk page. BelloWello (talk) 19:10, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK on La Sierra Presidents

You may be interested to know that the DYK nomination is proceeding on List of Presidents of La Sierra University. The article is currently in the prep area and will soon be added to the queue to be featured on the main page. Great work on getting all those sourced as well! BelloWello (talk) 23:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

It certainly is interesting. But, even with all those sources, it really wasn't that momentous, was it? Why is this moving forward to DYK? Don't get me wrong, I am quite pleased, but it still doesn't make sense to me. Enlighten me. On another thread of thought: all those sources were Adventist sources and La Sierra is an Adventist school. Recall our discussion on the Southern article and how that it was suggested that Adventist sources are inherently bias toward Adventist articles. I am being somewhat playful here. Obviously, Yearbook sources are replete with simple facts with no likely bias. Anyway, thought I would further our discussion a bit more. Final thought: I really am pleased this simple work is considered important enough for a DYK. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 23:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
I mean, we worked on it so it may as well have a DYK, right? My hunch is that the way the hook is written, the La Sierra University and Loma Linda University pages will get more views than the page we made though. haha. I'm not sure what doesn't make sense. When we move Larry Geraty to mainspace, we'll get that featured as well. I agree that the SDA yearbook is a good source for facts, the fact that the yearbook lists it does not infer notability however.. I would be more careful of other sources (i.e., La Sierra isn't likely to get too much promotional press from Adventist circles, SAU on the other hand is...). BelloWello (talk) 00:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
The DYK on the List of Presidents will appear around 8 am (Eastern U.S. time) on Sunday morning. BelloWello (talk) 05:28, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
BW, thanks for this. I will watch for it. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 05:32, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

FYI: Larry Geraty

I have moved the article to Larry Geraty and have nominated it for a DYK mention on the homepage. Thanks again for your collaboration on that article! BelloWello (talk) 04:33, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

A question and concern about your DYK nom can be found at T:DYK. Cheers, -- Khazar (talk) 19:14, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

PUC Church

Hey,

I'm working on a small article on the Pacific Union College Church. I'm currently gathering sources and stuff. Would you be willing to see if you can find anything in the Adventist Archives and post it on the talk page if you find anything? Any help with the article itself, would be of course, as usual, very appreciated! :) A fourth DYK maybe? ;) BelloWello (talk) 23:13, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I will see what I can do. The computer I am on right now does not work with pdf or djvu files. I will have to work on it later but will see what I can do. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 23:19, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
I looked over the article. Are you interested in the Church as a building only, or do you want to include the Church as a congregation? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 23:26, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the scope should be on the article. I think a fair amount of information about it is appropriate... particularly the Rieger Organ, which I am having trouble finding secondary sources on... There aren't very many articles about specific Adventist Churches, and none of them are any good... BelloWello (talk) 02:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
I've done everything I can for the article, for now, maybe you can to go through and add the material you've found to it? Then we can just work on fine tuning, and hold it till Cullen gets us a picture for featuring on DYK. :) BelloWello (talk) 20:48, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
I will work on that. Making some progress. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 20:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Awesome! I look forward to seeing it. Also, whenever that's complete (or in whatever order you want to do it) if you want, the List of Presidents of La Sierra is currently at WP:SDA/LSUPresidents pending expansion before it can go out into mainspace as a featured article. So if you want to work on that or a similar article, List of Presidents of Pacific Union College, sometime, I welcome any help you can offer with those as well! Also, I've started a sandbox stub for Richard Osborn if that interests you at all. I know, I'm in over my head, so it will probably take me a while to complete all of those, but any help would, of course, be highly appreciated. :) PUC interests me signficantly at the moment with the prospect that we will soon have pictures for it! BelloWello (talk) 07:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
I have too many interests, as well, so everything takes time. If you feel the articles need further immediate development don't hesitate to tell me so. I appreciate working collaboratively on these things. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 08:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, I mean, I would like to get the Church article done ASAP along with the President articles... but I wouldn't say that they need immediate development. Wikipedia has been fine without them for quite a while... but I would like to get them written and get them featured. As for Dick Osborn, if we could work on him in the manner we did Knight and Geraty, I think that would be cool too. Also, would you be interested in doing an article for Sidney Brownsberger? I don't know what kind of sources could be found, but he is inherently notable for being President of Andrews University and Pacific Union College. (alright, that's a stretch, neither of those qualify as "major" institutions, but I doubt it would be challenged...) Thoughts? BelloWello (talk) 08:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Do you want to focus on the Church article tomorrow? I've done what I can, but I'm sure it can use filling out with the research you've done, and perhaps a little more in the "Beliefs" section (not too bloated, but it could use more), I grew up Adventist and went to some adventist schools so far, but I have little clue what Adventist believe beyond church on Saturday! haha. Then maybe we can focus on another one? I prefer working with people on articles, it's much more interesting, particularly when the articles don't end up being controversial like the SAU one is for now (although, I would like to go back and work on that one as well once everything dies down...) BelloWello (talk) 08:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

PUC Church, Adventist Archives Sources

  • 1956, Pastor and Bible teacher Estel V Rogers leaves Auburn Academy to be pastor at the PUC Church.
North Pacific Union Gleaner. May 28, 1956, p. 6; also NPG June 4, 1956. p. 10
  • 1973, Irvin E. Kurtz, associate pastor of the PUC church and family life educator. NPG May 21, 1973 p. 28.
  • 1975, Tri-Conference Bible Camp Held at MiVoden. The leadership of the spiritual part of the program was under the direction of Elder Dick Winn from Angwin, Calif. Elder Winn is the associate pastor of the Pacific Union College church. He also has the by-line "I Have a Problem" in Signs of the Times published in Mountain View, Calif. Elder Winn has had the opportunity of developing the seventh and eighth grade Bible textbooks for the denomination's use. He also has had experience as an academy and college Bible instructor. NPG November 17, 1975, p. 15
Dick Winn is another notable Adventist. I have taught students using the materials he developed. He went on from the PUC church to take on leadership of Weimar. NPG May 6, 1985, p. 20
Pastor Vendon is a notable Adventist. Atlantic Union Gleaner. October 25, 1977. p. 3
This link takes us to two letters to the editor in response to another letter to the editor earlier criticizing the amount of money expended on the PUC Church. The letters, both from PUC Church officials, are full of facts about the church and cause me to wonder about whether such letters can be considered good source material for a Wikipedia article. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 03:57, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
  • 1984, Academy Bible Conference Held for Juniors, Seniors. Speaker for the conference was Roger Bothwell, pastor of the Pacific Union College Church. Another example of PUC pastors being resource people for the larger church. NPG January 2, 1984, p. 17
  • 1987, Crowd Swarms PUC Revelation Seminar. About 225 people squeezed into the Fireside Fellowship Room of the Pacific Union College church on January 19 to open the campus's Revelation Seminar. Sponsors had prepared 75 sets of study materials and quickly had to order more, according to Thomas Seibold, news coordinator. Adventist Review, February 12, 1987, p. 6.
  • 1989, Maranatha is committed to providing these experiences for any group that wants to become involved. Because of the dramatic increase of interest in short-term missions. Bill and Sue Smith have been hired to work with youth development. Formerly Bill was youth pastor at the Pacific Union College church, where he has conducted "missionary journeys" for the past 10 years. Adventist Review, January 19, 1989, p. 19
  • 1992, Louis Venden (Morris' brother, I think) senior pastor at PUC Church. Featured speaker at the North Coast camp meeting. NPG May 4, 1992, p. 26
  • 1993, Canadian Union College Alumni and Friends are invited to an Alumni Chapter Supper in the following places: Pacific Union College Church, Fireside Room, Feb. 21, 5 p.m. NPG February 1, 1993, p. 32.
  • 1997, Pacific Union College Church worship service pictured on the cover of the February 20, 1997 Adventist Review. ON THE COVER: STUDENTS LEAD THE CROSSWAYS SERVICE DECEMBER 7 AT THE PACIFIC UNION COLLEGE CHURCH. PHOTO BY JAMES REEDER.
Wow, thanks! Are there links for all these? Feel free, of course, to edit the article itself if you would like.. BelloWello (talk) 04:18, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, there are links. What I am doing here is putting together what I call a chronology. The citations without hyperlinks have links, I am just being a bit lazy, I guess. I find when I do this kind of chronology study the depth of the information increases. I think I will continue to add info here. Also, as I do this kind of background study, my knowledge of the subject develops as well. At some point, I will be ready to add info to the article. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 04:22, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Possible Paragraph Topics for article
  • PUC pastors served as resource people for NAD. PUC Church pastors served as resource people for the North American church. The Venden brothers, Winn and Bothwell illustrate this.
  • PUC Church provided a meeting place for diverse groups. eg. CUC alumni chapter meeting in the Fireside room. Revelation Seminar meets in Fireside Room.
  • PUC Church sets worship style model.
  • PUC Church base for youth missionary experiences

Dwight Nelson article

Some of this will be worked into the Dwight Nelson article.

The following exerpts give info on Nelson's early pastoring years in Oregon. He began as an associate pastor from the Seminary then went on to pastor his own district. He and his father, Paul, NPU Ministerial Secretary, did an evangelistic series together. Nelson shows interest in radio broadcasts and Christian education.

Search results for '"Dwight Nelson"'


Associate pastor from Seminary to Springfield/Fall Creek Oregon

http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/NPG/NPG19761101-V71-28__C.pdf#view=fit p. 20

People in transition: Oregon. North Pacific Union Gleaner, November 1, 1976, p. 20


Fall Creek Organizes

The Fall Creek (Ore.) congregation will be organized as a church during services on July 9. Former members and friends are invited to join in the special ceremony which will be conducted by Oregon Conference officers—Jack Harris, president: Rankin Wentland, Jr., secretary; and Ted Lutts, treasurer. Dwight Nelson serves as pastor of the 62-member group.


http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/NPG/NPG19770704-V72-13__C.pdf#view=fit

http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/NPG/NPG19770704-V72-13__C/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=14


Laymen's Group Organizes Church in Fall Creek

Nestled under the tall firs along the banks of Big Fall Creek, the gleaming white country church shines as a beacon to the inhabitants of the Jasper-Lowell area of Lane County. The structure was originally a Methodist church, dating back to 1904.

The church bell in the steeple now sings a Sabbath song. On July 9 officials of the Oregon Conference gathered at the church to organize the Fall Creek company into the Fall Creek church with 70 charter members.

In 1973 a group of Lane County laymen felt the need to establish a work in this rural area. Organizing what was known as the Laymen's Christian Crusade, the laymen visited homes, dis- tributed literature and held a lay evangelistic meeting. In 1974 the fel- lowship group was organized into a company. The church and six acres of land were purchased in 1976. Ample space is available for future growth.

Fall Creek is the only Oregon Confer- ence church in recent years to have been initiated and organized exclusively by laymen. One-third of the church membership has been added by baptism in the last four years, and all such con- verts are still members there

After the organizational services, members and officers enjoyed a fellow- ship potluck together. A baptism in the creek conducted by Pastor Dwight Nel- son concluded the occasion.

Fall Creek now becomes Oregon Conference's 107th church and will be voted into the sisterhood of churches at the next conference constituency meet- ing in 1980.

Includes picture of Nelson baptizing in Fall Creek and sitting on platform during service.

http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/NPG/NPG19771003-V72-19__C.pdf#view=fit

http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/NPG/NPG19771003-V72-19__C/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=13


The conference executive committee has asked Pastor Dwight Nelson, who has been serving in the Springfield dis- trict with Elder N. R. Johnson and as pastor of the Fall Creek church, to be- come pastor of the Coquille district.

http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/NPG/NPG19780116-V73-02__C.pdf#view=fit

http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/NPG/NPG19780116-V73-02__C/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=7

Oregon

Dwight Nelson has moved from the associate pastorship in the Springfield district to pastor the Coquille district.

http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/NPG/NPG19780320-V73-06__C/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=14

Daily Radio Broadcast Heard in Coquille Area

A one-minute broadcast is being aired three times daily over radio station KWRO. 630 on the dial in Coquille. Pastor Dwight Nelson is speaker and producer and has named his program "Perception."

Aired at 6:59 a.m., just before the CBS morning news and sports, 12:15 p.m. and 4:09 p.m., the program reaches morning and afternoon travel- ing listeners as far away as Reedsport, Roseburg and Brookings, Nelson says. Produced in an adult contemporary format, the program includes theme music throughout and is recorded in the station's studio.

http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/NPG/NPG19781218-V73-25__C.pdf#view=fit

http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/NPG/NPG19781218-V73-25__C/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=20


SOUTHWEST OREGON CRUSADE

February 24-March 17 A father-son evangelistic series will be conducted by Paul Nelson, of the NPUC office, and Pastor Dwight Nelson, of the Coquille and Myrtle Point churches. Please send the names of interests for these meetings to:

Dwight K. Nelson 1070 E. 15th St. Coquille, OR 97423

http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/NPG/NPG19790205-V74-03__C.pdf#view=fit

http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/NPG/NPG19790205-V74-03__C/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=23

Father-Son Team Lead Out in Prophecy Seminar

The Prophetic Perception Seminar was a family project — a joint venture in evangelism for both the Coquille and Myrtle Point, Ore., church families.

It was also a new venture for another family. Saturday evening, Feb. 24, marked the fulfillment for a family


(Picture of father and son)

dream to conduct a crusade together as a father-son team by Paul Nelson. North Pacific Union Conference ministerial secretary, and his son. Dwight. Coquille valley district pastor.

For three months prior to the semi- nar. Dwight had broadcast his daily Perception program to Oregon's south coast residents over radio KWRO, Coquille's adult contemporary station. He had developed the Three Angels' Messages in keeping with the station's fast-paced format. With that bridge of communication opened, the invitation was extended both on the broadcast and in printed form to attend the seminar.

Nearly 300 persons responded to the invitation on opening night at the Wash- ington School auditorium. Among those who attended during the following four weeks were more than 80 non- Adventists including one of KWRO's disc jockeys who had been listening to the one-minute radio spots about the Sabbath. He had become perplexed by an apparent discrepancy with his Lu- theran background. Having attended the key seminar presentations, he is now wrestling with the Sabbath truth.

As part of the seminar. Dr. Allan Munroe. Coos County health officer, coordinated a nightly health feature ranging from such topics as cancer and colds to diet and dental care. Among the speakers were local Adventjst health personnel. Resulting public response for healthful living was encouraging.

On the closing Sabbath afternoon, 15 who had committed their lives to Jesus Christ were baptized. Seven more were baptized two weeks later. Another ten persons were planning for baptism on succeeding weeks as they considered the truths being presented.

Dwight and his wife, Karen, are re- joicing with next-door neighbors on both sides of their home who joined the church through baptism as a result of the seminar.

More than just a father-son and church family team effort, the seminar was linked with the greatest team leader, their heavenly Father. "These family members enthusiastically dem- onstrated a team effort which resulted in a bountiful Spring Harvest." Dwight commented.

C. Elwyn Plainer Communication Director

http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/NPG/NPG19790521-V74-10__C.pdf#view=fit

http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/NPG/NPG19790521-V74-10__C/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=11

Pastor East Salem Oregon Camp Meeting early morning devotionals

http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/NPG/NPG19800616-V75-12__C/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=18

http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/NPG/NPG19800818-V75-16__C/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=16


Pastor wins 25 through IIW Seminar: Dwight Nelson, pastor of the Coquille, Oregon, church, reports good success in following up an It Is Written Seminar last February in Coos Bay. Twentyfive persons have already been baptized as a result. The Coos Bay seminar was one of 28 conducted by George Vandeman and Lonnie Melashenko last spring in six States and Canada, with nearly 9,000 persons in attendance, p. 24

http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/RH/RH19800807-V157-37__B.pdf#view=fit

Many Begin New Lives During Great Commitment Celebration

Editor's Note: Many baptismal serv- ices across the Northwest marked the second annual Great Commitment Celebration. Following are a few re- ports received at the GLEA NER office.

East Salem, Ore.

The Great Commitment Celebration took a little different form in East Salem, with the entire program being called "A Celebration of Christian Edu- cation." Pastor Dwight Nelson reports on what happened:

Instead of a sermon this Sabbath, we had three tributes: a tribute to our school, a tribute to our staff, and a trib- ute to our principal. I gave the tribute to Livingstone Junior Academy (con- trasting public school education with Christian schoolings). Karen Van San- ten, vice chairman of the school board and a member of East, led out in the tribute to our teachers and staff.

All the teachers at Livingstone were invited to be present for the service. (Some are members of other Salem churches.) Each teacher was invited forward and given a carnation by one of the students. As each came forward. Karen noted the years each had taught at Livingstone, as well as other Chris- tian schools. Fred Kites, school board chairman, then read a letter of apprecia- tion from the constituency to Elder and Mrs. Lyle Griffin for their service and leadership at Livingstone.

Here are two items to note: First, the combined years of service in Adventist schools for the teachers, staff and prin-

pictures:

Pastor Dwight Nelson, left, had the staff of Livingstone Junior Academy come to the front of the church for a prayer of dedication.

Newly baptized members of the East Salem Church include the following (front row, left to right): Jana Davis, Jason Golden, Brian Bovee, Chris Maghee, Michael Nelson. In the back row, left to right, are Pastor Dwight Nel- son and Elder and Mrs. Lyle Griffin.

end pictures

cipal totaled up to two-and-a-half cen- turies! The second item to note is that when the teachers were asked to turn and face the congregation, the people burst into spontaneous applause!

The climax of the program was the j Great Commitment Celebration. Ele- ven of our students have made that commitment. Five of them were bap- tized on this Sabbath, and the others are to be baptized soon. This is a harvest of Christian education and the dedicated ministry of the staff at Livingstone , Junior Academy.

http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/NPG/NPG19810720-V76-14__C.pdf#view=fit

http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/NPG/NPG19810720-V76-14__C/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=8


Salem Community Services Offer Varied Help to Area

The Salem Adventist Community Services Center operated by the three Salem churches has had a busy season.

One hundred thirty-nine people at- tended the three Five-Day Stop- Smoking Clinics and of these a large percentage were able to overcome the smoking habit. Pastors Dick Hanson, Dwight Nelson and John Ford com- bined efforts with Doctors Emery Karst, William Moreno and Ivan Das- senko to make the clinics a success.


http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/NPG/NPG19810921-V76-18__C.pdf#view=fit

http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/NPG/NPG19810921-V76-18__C/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=16



East Salem Completes Large Sabbath School Wing

The East Salem Seventh-day Advent- ist Church has completed their new 7,500-square-foot Sabbath school wing and fellowship hall.

The new addition includes nine new classrooms and a room that can ac- commodate 200 individuals. This fel- lowship hall can be divided into three smaller rooms by means of folding doors. The wing also has a commercial kitchen with stove, sink, dishwasher and refrigerator.

The construction included extra- thick insulation and double-glazed win- dows to make heating more economical. An additional convenience is a central vacuum system.

The cost of construction was $150.000 but the replacement value would be at least $375,000. There is a mortgage of $29,000 which will be taken care of in the months ahead and then the building will be dedicated.

Picture:

The new Sabbath school wing and fel- lowship hall addition to the East Salem Church complements the structure which houses the sanctuary.


The church appreciates the many hours that were put in by Ivan Dassen- ko. chairman of the building committee, David Copeland, treasurer, and Jack Culver, who drew the plans.

Help was contributed by many of the church members. Lucas Lumber and Plywood donated considerable mate- rials and Holiday Interiors was able to purchase the carpet, chairs and kitchen appliances for the church at wholesale cost.

Pastor Dwight Nelson and Kevin Wilfley plan a strong evangelistic out- reach this winter, using the new facilities.

Frank L. Nyberg Communication Secretary


http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/NPG/NPG19811207-V76-23__C.pdf#view=fit

http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/NPG/NPG19811207-V76-23__C/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=21


PUC Church

Is that all you plan on doing on that article? If it is, that's fine, I just wanted to know... I think notability is established to a certain degree, although some more sources wouldn't hurt. Also, I don't know if you've noticed what I've been up to at WP:SDA/PUCPresidents? If you care to help there, that would 100% be appreciated. I'm currently adding info from the PUC website, but more from other sources would be excellent since notability has to be established that way. (In case you can't tell, I prefer working on new pages as it is much easier to get them featured on the front page. ^.^) BelloWello (talk) 05:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

There is so much available. My interest is in developing articles with sources available usually from Adventist Archives and quite often from Google books. I will continue to study about the PUC church and develop it over time. I will look at the PUC presidents page you mention. Interestingly, just this morning I found a list of the first three presidents of Healdsburg College, I think. I rather enjoy how working on these articles broadens my perspective on things. I enjoy helping editors, such as yourself, as well. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 07:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Osborn and Brownsberger both interest me, especially Brownsberger. It seems to me, he was quite notable as an Adventist educator. There should be plenty in Adventist Archives and from the historians who have written books on SDA past. Why not set up a project page for both, or at least Brownsberger and I will provide some basic info for it. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 07:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Awesome! Whenever you're done with PUC Church let me know, I'll try to find someone to go through it and then we can feature it on the homepage whenever we get a picture. I already had a project page for Osborn at WP:SDA/Dick Osborn that I started a while ago. I'll make one for Brownsberger at WP:SDA/Brownsberger shortly as well. I saw him listed in Gary Land's dictionary the other day which I found quite interesting. It also turns out that we have a picture of him that is free use (published before 1923) so that is already on the page set up for PUC Presidents (which requires quite a bit more work)...
I agree, this has become quite a learning experience for me. I'm currently in high school, and I must say after my edits, the chance of my attending PUC has risen exponentially. BelloWello (talk) 07:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Stub for Brownsberger started, although I would prefer we got the articles that are close ready for mainspace first before starting new ones, I think Brownsberger is a 100% appropriate addition. I don't know if you've noticed, I've started a template to be worked on for PUC: WP:SDA/Template:Pacific Union College, which once there are more articles related to PUC I think will be helpful in navigation. It's kind of a roadmap for what I want to see long-term related to PUC, feel free to add to it. BelloWello (talk) 07:26, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Brownsberger

I guess I missed the current article already existing at Sidney Brownsberger, thanks for catching it! In order to feature an existing article on the front page as a DYK, we're going to have to expand it 5x. The other option, imo, is we could probably strip it down to only what is in sources and expand it from that in wikispace. I wonder if an Admin would be willing to move it to wikispace for a while for us to do that? Thoughts? bW 23:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't know anything about wikispace, but am willing to support your idea and then learn. I think the Brownsberger article will develop/can develop in a variety of ways. My first objective is to learn facts from his obituary and make sure the current article has them. Brownsberger is interesting because he started at Battle Creek without any idea of the Adventist educational innovations but by the time he took on Healdsberg he had developed his thinking further. Then when he helped develop what now is Fletcher Academy (if I have the story correct) he was fully aware of the Adventist industrial academy concept. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 23:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
I think you have it right. Let's make another version at WP:SDA/Brownsberger that incorporates everything in the current article at Sidney Brownsberger and strip the current article down to the basics. We can expand the version at WP:SDA/Brownsberger, when that's complete, get it swapped out for the old version and claim a DYK based on new article or 5x expansion either. bW 23:38, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Alright, the old article at Sidney Brownsberger is now at Wikipedia talk:SDA/Brownsberger along with the obituary. We can work on it at WP:SDA/Brownsberger and if I'm not mistaken, when we get it moved into mainspace, it should qualify for a DYK (although I am not positive...). bW 23:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Any particular reason why you made these edits on the talk page rather than WP:SDA/Brownsberger? I would copy paste it into the article after you worked on it but that would be a violation of liscensing, etc. Unless there's a particular reason not to, I would suggest making additions with sources directly to the article and use the talk page for pasting background information and sources, etc. bW 01:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
What I am doing is taking the copy material and editing it into my own voice. When I do that, I always include the citation at the end of the editing and hopefully some white space before and after to keep a distinction between the copy material and my edits. I find it easier to slowly rewrite the material with citations if everything is kind of together. I figure that by the time I am done, I will be able to paste into the article some useful edits. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 01:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Alright, that's cool. My usual searches aren't bringing up anything so I'll kinda play second fiddle to you on this one. bW 02:24, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Geraty

I don't know if you noticed, there is now a good article review on Larry Geraty at Talk:Larry Geraty/GA1. I went ahead and took care of the main text issues, we have a week to deal with the rest which are with citations. Do you mind taking a look? I'll have time to work on it some more later on I think. bW 19:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

In other news, List of Presidents of Pacific Union College is almost ready for mainspace. Would you mind doing some copy editing and see if you can find any sources for stuff in their in the Pacific Union Record or anywhere else? Google News doesn't seem to go that far back... I'll be adding sources as well. Also, if you could write the section on Richard Osborn (second to last), I don't know how to write that so I would like to defer to someone else. Thanks! bW 04:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi BW, Where does the hidden text on Osborn come from? Source, citation.???? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 12:12, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Also, specifically, what information are we/you hoping to find citations for? This weekend, I might be able to help. I like the pictures collected. Lots more to find it seems. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 12:15, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Return to SAU/SMC

You are invited to return to the article on Southern. Bello was found to be a sockpuppet and has been blocked indefinitely. I guess this also means you will be rather busy strengthening the articles you two were working on. Without Bello on the article your input is crucial to providing balance and fairness as well as HELPFUL suggestions. Fountainviewkid 3:43, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

What do you think about the new labeling of Southern as Historic Adventist, courtesy of BW? I personally think it's an inappropriate and extreme label, but I won't be reverting inside the 24 hour limit, even though BW obviously is. Any suggestions or comments on this? Fountainviewkid 01:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of The Hebrew Prophets, nabiy' for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Hebrew Prophets, nabiy' 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/The Hebrew Prophets, nabiy' 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 good 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 template from the top of the article.. IZAK (talk) 08:53, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Larry Geraty

The DYK project (nominate) 12:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

May get bumpy again

Donald, impressive job you're doing on the article. I had hoped with the indef block on our colleague the drama would subside, and the admins would tire of watching this little article. Unfortunately his meatpup had returned and appears to be itching for an edit war. I'm writing you to caution you to be careful that you don't get caught up with too many reverts... We don't want to lose your talent on the article. Lionel (talk) 06:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind thoughts. I have done several reverts lately, but they all seemed to be obviously needed and in response to random editors using only their IP address for their names. Wikipedia's strong point, i.e. allowing all to edit, is also its weak point. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 09:15, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your work on the Southern article. We need to solve the ideology/progressive dilemma. What do you think about my proposal to remove the whole Ideology section? I see it as the only real way to achieve a compromise. I only wanted the "progressive" label next to Cottrell to clarify where the comments are coming from. If you have any other suggestions on how to do this they would very much be appreciated. Fountainviewkid 00:48, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi Fountainviewkid, I think the ideology of Southern is important. I suspect it is even important to Southern's admin. Kind of a niche market. Early on, Southern described itself as a school "with standards". Whether we label Cottrell progressive or not, he certainly was unconventional. His undiplomatic description of Southern illustrates his being outside the mainstream. Mainstream Adventists don't talk that way even if they think it privately. I have been looking at the Raymond Cottrell Wikipedia article. It is significant that the Adventist Review carried an obituary for him in 2003. I think it is important that Cottrell not be portrayed as a main stream Adventist in his retirement years. He addressed issues which took him out of the main stream. He could probably be better described as outspoken on crucial issues of church policy and doctrine. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 01:08, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Would you at least agree that the Adventist Today source is reliable and valid (and that it exists as far as you know)? I know we may disagree on the label "progressive" but do you at least admit that we have reliable sources stating he took those positions (even if he never characterized it that way)? Thanks for your suggestions and balance. Fountainviewkid 01:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes. Adventist Today is reliable and valid. I think the argument against Adventist Today is that its very name suggests a bias toward Adventism. But, this is not the case. Adventist Today like Spectrum follows an independent track. They certainly are not bias in favor of mainstream Adventism. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 01:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Good to know. This debate was reignited when the new editor accused those of us who supported the progressive label as not editing in good faith because the link was broken. My point to him, was that though the link was broken, Adventist Today is a reliable and valid source and it also exists in print. Yes we both definitely know that they have more of a (dare I use the term) "progressive" slant to them, just like Spectrum only with more moderation. Should I test out a few edits to the "ideology" section using your suggestions (non-mainstream, critical, outspoken, etc.)? I don't know exactly how I would go about doing that, but it seems you do. Any suggestions? Fountainviewkid 01:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
The issue as I see it is for Cottrell to be balanced with a more moderate writer. Those who like Southern's approach to Adventism certainly have said so and why, so where. Where? Cottrell was not speaking diplomatically: I think all would agree. Nor was he speaking accurately, IMO. The purge of the 1980s decade was unfortunate from my perspective and I don't consider myself a "Progressive Adventist" though someone else might. I think it is too early to revert the text. Let thinks simmer for awhile. Perhaps a consensus can come out of this yet. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 05:30, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Amen I agree strongly. Please feel free to post this response on the Southern Talk page so Mojo can see it before he accuses me of anymore bad faith edits, and reverts the "silent consensus". I say silent, because after Bello Wello's block the issue kind of died out. You may have disagreed, but not to the point where you were going to press it. Hopefully we can achieve a consensus which I think we might since most of the editors still involved can be fair minded. Fountainviewkid 05:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Great work! I love what you did to the Ideology section. Personally its about to the point where I would be supportive of removing the "progressive" label. I think the context now exists that provides the balance that was not there. Thanks for your editing and fairness. It helps to have a fellow knowledgeable editor. Fountainviewkid 13:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC

I'm ready to take the "progressive" label out, but it would be nice to have Lionel and Simba on board as well. Any suggestions for finalizing this action? Fountainviewkid 18:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. It looks like you "solved" the problem. Your editing is very much appreciated. I'm glad you have access to Adventist Today (print version). Fountainviewkid 00:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Nontrinitarianism.

I accept your correction in the article. However, as someone who is non sola Scriptura how it is that Scripture can, independantly of Tradition and Magisterium, come to a trinitarian doctrine? I'm not stirring it here, but you will not find "ousia" in the New Testament or consubstanstantial. Is there not an implicit, grudging, reliance on Ephesus? Peace. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Laurel Lodged, I see an interesting relationship between the Church and the Scriptures. It was individual church leaders who wrote what is now the New Testament canon. By the end of the fourth century, the New Testament canon had been "closed" by church leaders (not in an ecumenical council, but rather a regional one. Now we have the pleasant phenomenon where all, or almost all(?), the Christian Churches have the same collection of documents known as the New Testament. This allows for authoritative discussions based on the NT.
I see the gathering of church leaders at Nicaea, Ephesus, etc. as that of fellow believers. If I were there, I would view myself as an equal spiritually to the bishops gathered there. If there was a bishop there who knew his biblical manuscripts, then I would compare scripture with scripture and watch his reasoning, his logic carefully.
I have come to view doctrinal discussions as happening at a metaphorical table. The bishops, you, I, and perhaps Constantine, all sit at the table. We discuss matters. But the base of our discussions is, must be, the teachings of the Scriptures; i.e the Hebrew Scriptures and the accepted writings of the apostles. I doubt that Constantine would have returned my view of equality with him. Perhaps the Bishops of Rome, Alexandria, Constantinople, Antioch, etc would also find it difficult to enjoy me being at the table. Alas, I am there anyway, and so are you. The very church leaders who led the way in closing the canon now must allow you and me to assess their teachings by that canon. This includes the leaders who gathered at Ephesus.
It would have been a grand experience to be at Ephesus (or any other such gathering) and to have watched the spiritual lives of those attending and to listen to their reasoning. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 21:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree - I'd love to have been a fly on the wall at Ephesus & at Nicaea in particular. Picking up on one of your points, the only reason that we can have "authoritative discussions based on the NT" is because it was authoritatively decided. Why can church leaders act authoritatively in deciding the canon of the NT but not in other areas? Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I view it this way: Church authority arises out of practical issues and it should never overstep Biblical canon authority. The canon of scripture seems to have developed and then closed in order to deal with "error". The church can/does have authority, the Bible is its highest authority by which all from the lowly layman to the highly responsible church leader find their guidance. The Bible provides a great stablizing influence mainly because it is closed. The church still must deal with its understanding of truth, its administrative role, etc. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 22:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I understand where you're coming from. I'll make one parting remark: could it not also be said the the Councils which met, some which also met before the "end of the fourth century", were also convened and developed and then closed in order to deal with "error"". So why should the one be considered Authoritative while the other is not? Were the same (or very close) personnel not involved in both cases? Peace to you. Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes and the church must address error. I think as we examine early Christian authors we see them resorting to Scriptural authority in a more basic manner. If my church (protestant) makes a decision, that decision stands until the church's body politic can be persuaded that the previous stand was incorrect. Usually that is very hard to do. I have enjoyed our brief discussion DonaldRichardSands (talk) 00:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Break

Hey there,

Sorry for the lack of collaboration on our projects. Seems to be a large amount of failures in communication, some of it my fault. In reply to your question about where the Osborn information on WP:SDA/PUCPresidents came from, that is from his biography that I linked as a reference to the latin text. bW 09:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Welcome back. Another question: What happened to the list of presidents for La Sierra? Regarding collaboration, I have found it helpful. I much prefer consensus building to warring, though. :) DonaldRichardSands (talk) 10:31, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
The list of La Sierra presidents is at WP:SDA/LSUPresidents. Hopefully we can get it beefed up and then move it back to mainspace. We need a minimum of 1500 words in order to qualify for Did You Know. :) bW 22:25, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Good. Thanks for this. I wonder if we should contact La Sierra and ask if they have pictures that can help the profile. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 23:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
That would be great, and perhaps the same for WP:SDA/PUCPresidents? bW 23:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Any luck? bW 01:35, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi BW, during the week I focus on other things needing to get done. I am not really familiar with such requests, probably the PR department would know. Dr. Knight at PUC has been very support of our efforts, I think eventually I may seek to get her help on the pictures project. Do we have a deadline when things have to come together? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 04:35, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
WP:NODEADLINE. I think the PUC Church entry is ready whenever Cullen gets us some pictures (he said he would do so). After finishing off the article on Presidents and waiting for pictures, what do you think of writing a history of PUC? We would have pictures available so I think it would be quite interesting (I'm a big fan of pictures) and you seem to have access to a lot of sources. Also, on WP:SDA/PUCPresidents, we need to find some non-PUC sources for facts about the Presidents. Do you think you could help on this from the archives? I don't think we need EVERYTHING to be a third party source, but we need enough of them to demonstrate notability. bW 02:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
I put a note on the PUC project page's discussion page regarding wording. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 03:06, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Doing a PUC history is certainly of interest to me. There are plenty of non-PUC sources. Within the church Presidents came from some other church work and then go on to other church work. Within the church, once a person becomes a president of something, they are notable. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 03:06, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 23:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

ANI-Southern Adventist University

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.Simbagraphix (talk) 12:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

ANI - Waters

The "progressive positions" source is back online. Do you know how to use the Wayback machine? Getting it archived there would end the WP:V dispute once and for all. Lionel (talk) 22:42, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Weimar

Please visit this link [8] as your opinion and expertise would be appreciated. Fountainviewkid 10:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Please note WP:3RR and stop editing that page for today. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:27, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi Nomoskedasticity. Thanks. So noted. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 13:30, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Bello didn't give me the same privilege Nomo did so your input would be appreciated here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Fountainviewkid_reported_by_User:BelloWello_.28Result:_.29. --Fountainviewkid (talk) 04:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Samuel Koranteng-Pipim

Hi Donald, I'm aware of the great work you're doing with SDA articles and was hoping you could take a look at this. Lots of recent activity, and I don't know anything about SDA theologians. Lionel (talk) 05:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Lionel, Pipim helped start the GYC. He has been a conservative leader in Adventism over a decade or more. A recent church leader expressed concern to me regarding what his resignation and moral difficulty will do to the confidence and faith of the young people who look up to him. GYC has been a significant movement within Adventism. I think it would be wise to watch the article, especially the resignation section to ensure that only carefully documented information is included. The Golden Rule applies here, too. Less is better than more, I think. Yet, carefully managed information is better than no information. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 11:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Sunnydale Adventist Academy

Hi. I have been working on the history section of Sunnydale Adventist Academy. For most of its history it has been called Sunnydale Academy. I am intrigued with the deliberate actions taken to get this school started. Its beginning history provides a study in committee action, community goodwill, fund-raising, cooperation between the various levels of church government, etc. Anyone interested in helping, please do. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 12:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey Donald, I have been working on some of the Academy's, so will see what I can find and bring it over.....Simbagraphix (talk) 15:40, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi Simba, I look forward to your input. I have noted that the Academies and Colleges which began in the early 1900's have similar features, i.e. emphasis on work program, willingness to sacrifice to get an education, really primitive conditions such as living in tents while the buildings are built, etc. Sunnydale began later on. Initial actions seem more deliberate and final before students move in. Common threads include financial support and sacrifice. Adventists who support the educational institutions do so with deep interest and pockets. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 15:51, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Most students had to work to help pay for school costs, and that has been kept as a option in one form or another especially in boarding academies with campus housing. Here is a site with some good info to check on. http://www.adventistyearbook.org/default.aspx?page=ViewEntity&EntityID=17005 Simbagraphix (talk) 17:58, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Adventist Education and Opportunity for the poor to improve their circumstances and lot in life.

As Simba noted in the previous section, many students could not afford private school unless they could work to cover the costs. Lynn Wood in his 1920 report on Southern Junior College noted that when young people learned that they could get an education and pay for it by working on campus, they took hold of the opportunity. This feature of Adventist Education deserves further exploration. In the early 1900s Adventists were part of the rural/industrial school movements. Adventist schools were intentionally work oriented. Students learned a trade as they prepared for more academic enterprises: broom factories, blacksmith shops, dairy farms, poultry farms, printing, furniture manufacturing, book-binding, etc. Adventist educational practices helped the poor improve their lot in life. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 18:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

GYC

Your work is commendable. Thanks for all the editing you are doing there.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 13:01, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi FVK. Thanks for your kind words. I have put my recent thoughts on the talk page at the GYC article. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 13:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Donald, surprising that you voted Merge after you expanded and improved the article. Are you aware typically only a fraction of an article's original content survives a merge? We should Keep the article for now. We can always merge later---on our timetable and not with AfD hanging over the article.– Lionel (talk) 04:16, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
I know your interested in keeping the content, by merging, but I don't see why we can't have a summary in SDA independent ministries and keep the article. Especially considering the recent additions you made. What do you think? – Lionel (talk) 06:11, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
I mentioned my interest in keeping the historical info with the merge and the change of formaat that would be needed. I am okay with keeping the article. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 06:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
What can be done here? I feel like it's a lose lose situation on this article. What do you think? What hope do we have.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 23:56, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi FVK and Lionel, I see two choices. 1. We can work on the article and show the information as best as possible. I thought of doing this. It would be a huge waste of time if after developing the article further, it gets trashed anyway. 2. We can agree to the merge and lose lots of good information. The third party rule is kind of fuzzy when it comes to Adventist sources. GYC is now an accepted entity within Adventism. Adventist journals do not openly criticize their own programs. If there are legitimate concerns, these are not dealt with publically. So keeping a balance is much more difficult. Spectrum and Adventist Today are not in the loop, usually, so their articles can be defended as third party more easily than, say, the Adventist Review. Wikipedia is a community with a certain amount of rules. But, the strongest coalition usually wins. After saying all this, I am inclined to seek to establish the GYC article anyway. Are you prepared to help?

Request for review

Hello DonaldRichardSands,

I would like to request that you review the concerns I expressed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Seventh-day Adventist Church. I have been impressed by your editing history and willingness to work with those of various viewpoints. Many thanks! 78.26 (talk) 14:53, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi 78.26, I have added some thoughts at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Seventh-day Adventist Church. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 15:49, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

reverts of BelloWello's edits

Hello, Donald. On Lionel's talk page you said an IP reverted all of BelloWello's edits today. Can you point me to a specific example or at least an article name? Thanks. I agree with you that IPs shouldn't be reverting registered users edits, generally speaking, without a good reason. --Kenatipo speak! 23:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I think Donald was talking about the reverts made by Lithistman. Mojoworker (talk) 00:05, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes. Not an IP, but a registered editor, Lithistman. If you look on his talk page you will notice that a few editors have misunderstood what he was doing. Our banned friend did some sensible edits (but he was breaking the rules doing so). Lithistman was correct in reverting all of the edits. I am guessing that he had some kind of Bot, or something similar, to quickly revert stuff. Of course, it would be really tedious to work through each edit of the banned editor and Lithistman certainly has better things to do. So, hats of to him and his work. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 00:12, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Mojoworker, I have reviewed all the listed edits on the other edits and have fixed a few. I think everything is in reasonable order for courteous editing dialogue. I am concerned about this one: * 07:21, 7 July 2011 (diff | hist) Template talk:Seventh-day Adventist Colleges and Universities in North America (→I agree with old edit: new section) BW added his opinion, which was reasonable but in a prior edit he had disrupted some significant work by Antwonw. Notice in the section above BW's opinion, Antwonw expresses annoyance at BW's editing and said he was giving up on helping the article. Antwonw's comments appear down at the end of the section. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 04:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I think when he says "I agree with old edit. If a user that can move pages could move it the way the IP had it, I would agree with that", I think he's talking about this diff as "the way the IP had it". The current version has the title changed to be "Seventh-day Adventist colleges and universities in the US and Canada", but in order to change the actual name of the template it would need to be moved — hence his request for "a user that can move pages". I don't think it's anything to worry about since anyone reading a page where the template is transcluded, such as at the bottom of the Southern Adventist University page, will see the "US and Canada" verbiage and not "North America". So, it's only an issue for editors and the template they would need to include on any new Adventist post–secondary institution page would be Template:Seventh-day Adventist Colleges and Universities in North America. There's a reason that there is a separate title parameter, just for this situation — so you can "rename" the title of the template without actually moving it. Heck, here might one day be one in Mexico or the Caribbean and the title would need to be changed back. Hope this explanation makes sense. Let me know if you have questions. Mojoworker (talk) 18:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I've been following Bello all year and have been involved in every major debacle with this editor. I have initiated most of the noticeboard actions against him. Some may even describe me as a Bellologist. As a Bellologist I can reliably state that he is a psychopath. If we leave just one of his edits unreverted in his twisted mind he will view it as an endorsement of his presence here. We will have a serial-sockpuppet that we will never get rid of. Through his social media resources he will raise an army of brain-washed meat puppets that will crash the Wikipedia servers. We risk the very existence of Wikipedia by failing to enforce the ban. (Maybe the meat army was an exaggeration.) – Lionel (talk) 01:36, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of 198.228.224.166

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 00:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

  • It is OK with me that the page is deleted. I was trying to get the attention of 198.228.224.166. This unregistered editor has been doing some deletions on a controversial page which seems quite inappropriate. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 00:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
I notified Jclemens about that IP and the other similar IP, but it looks like he's offline. You might want to leave a note for Kuru Thanks. Mojoworker (talk) 01:04, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

General Youth Conference -- Congrats!

The Article Rescue Barnstar
You are awarded this barnstar for your substantial and sustained efforts in rescuing General Youth Conference from certain deletion. Said article having been nominated by the infamous, notorious and nefarious sockmaster Bello. – Lionel (talk) 11:51, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment about the new article on the US Supreme Court case, Time, Inc. v. Hill

DonaldRichardSands, Thank you for your comment about the new article on the US Supreme Court case, Time, Inc. v. Hill — your interest is much appreciated! Care to help out in the Quality Improvement Drive on this article? FA writer Wehwalt (talk · contribs) and I are hopefully going to bring the page to FA quality. We could always use additional feedback and suggestions, and more specifically if you wish you could help with research, copyediting, etc. No worries, either way! ;) Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 13:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

At the moment, we're waiting on some additional research related to Richard Nixon from Wehwalt (talk · contribs), but you're more than welcome to help out. :) — Cirt (talk) 16:13, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Marshall Strabala

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Marshall Strabala. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 06:18, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:James Darcy Lever

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:James Darcy Lever. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 06:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Militant atheism

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Militant atheism. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 07:00, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Gihan Sami Soliman

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Gihan Sami Soliman. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 18:33, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Donald! The RFCBot seems to really like you lol! I looked at the article and the AfD. The article has no chance. Sourcing problems, COI problems, and only 1 Keep vote. The best outcome would be userfication. (Let me know if this changes.) This isn't GYC where the Keeps=Deletes and we were able argue, to the closer's satisfation, that the SDA sources counted toward notability. Note that even though GYC was Kept it still faces stubification by Delete-editors who still challenge the SDA sources. – Lionel (talk) 21:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi Lionel, thanks for your input. Life with Wikipedia can be interesting, huh. I rather like what Gihan Sami Soliman is trying to do to help her country. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 21:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Gihan Sami Soliman

Greetings

Thank you for encouraging me to keep working for my country no matter what happens in Wikipedia. This is such a noble gesture . There are several dialogue boxes about the article and I don't know where should I go .. I have proposed on the talk page of the article a link that should help as an evidence that port Said American School as under the umbrella of Port Said Schools, Zamalek is a major educational institute in Egypt

http://ahramdigital.org.eg/Community.aspx?Serial=518754 

The link leads to Al-Ahram digital portal .. the major media portal across Egypt, but again the news will need translation.

Sorry for all the talk .. and thank you again and again.

G.S. Soliman (talk) 22:13, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

How do you want to proceed? You can follow Ole Yeller's idea of asking to have the article userfied. I have never done that. It would be interesting to watch. Also, are you acquainted with the Google translator? Do you personally know Arabic? The translator is of considerable help. Let's get the article out of the limelight and work on developing it. The easiest is to create a subpage to your personal page. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 22:20, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar
Appreciation .. even if all contributions deleted .. G.S. Soliman (talk) 15:15, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Not great at explaining things

I'm not great at explaining things but if any specific questions, feel free to ask. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:46, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Retro notes

2011

January 13. This page is the user page for Donald Richard Sands. My interest is to further the development of wikipedia entries, usually of Seventh-day Adventist persons or institutions. My first project on the wikipedia site was the entry for Graham Maxwell. My second effort: Developing the entry Kenneth H. Wood. I have intentionally not removed any earlier information given on these entries. As an entry develops, some of the earlier content may seem repetitious. Such is the price of courtesy as we work on an entry together.

January 16. I have done some initial study re: The American Medical Missionary College and plan to develop the entry further soon. Also, on the John Harvey Kellogg site there was no section on his theology, so I have started a section. It is not very balanced yet, just a start and then a quote where he presents what seem like pantheistic views. Of course, pantheism does not envisage a personal God and Kellogg definitely spoke of a personal God. Perhaps that would classify him as a Panentheist?

January 25. My focus has been on Loma Linda University. As I try to present carefully documented and lucid comments, I am finding my awareness of the topic develops quickly. Of course, where all this leads, who knows, but I find it highly engaging and a good distraction from other matters.

January 28.

Regarding work I have done on the Andrews University entry, I have been interested in developing the Battle Creek College history, but do not like how I have left a sketchy start. I have taken that off. Perhaps later we can do some work on that. Here is what I took off:

1850's, Early Interest in Education

1860's, Goodloe Harper Bell's School

1860's James White's and Battle Creek College

1874, Battle Creek College Begins

W. W. Prescott as President

E. A. Sutherland as President





Books of interest for further reading

The Handbook of Canadian Boarding Schools (1999)


Any ideas and tips regarding the wikipedia protocols which you would like to share with me is welcomed and appreciated.

Please comment on Talk:Boris Berezovsky (businessman)

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Boris Berezovsky (businessman). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 03:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Dear DonaldRichardSands, I am seeking opinions on the proposal to move the draft article to the main page, which has now been unblocked. I would appreciate your taking a look at the revised text. The article is still incomplete, but I will not be able to spend time on this for the next couple of weeks. Perhaps, it is time to involve a wider community--Kolokol1 (talk) 22:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

No...

...somebody who has a PhD in Biology and is the head of a "Department of Earth and Biological Sciences" ... is a biologist. And lo and behold the article already says that. "Educator" is just still more lousy padding. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:40, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Lousy padding. I disagree. The role of an educator is more than just biologist. An educator seeks to be all that plus more. Hopefully, I will be able to demonstrate that Brand is not just a biologist but intentionally seeks to educate his students to be excellent scientists in their chosen fields. I do appreciate your helping me as you are doing. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 07:46, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
  • The role of a university academic includes that of educator, which includes the role of educator. The whole article is duplicated. The whole article is duplicated. Which gets very annoying. Did I mention that it gets very annoying? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:57, 6 August 2011 (UTC) HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:57, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I think I can understand your annoyance. I get annoyed when you change things so quickly that I have to go back and struggle to restore a forward effort for the article. I like your criticism and find it very helpful. 'Educator' is more than 'biologist'. There is the lead which must be comprehensive and then that must be verified by the body of the article. Have you ever tried to be friendly in your criticism? Its not that hard and is a lot more fun. Don't get me wrong. I probably learn faster by your mean talking criticism and quick, seemingly destructive, edits. Try being an educator. Obviously, I need to be educated further on all things Wikipedia. :) DonaldRichardSands (talk) 08:42, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Take a look at articles on a wide range of academics. How many of them (other than perhaps those who have 'education' as their field of academic expertise) are explicitly described as 'educators'? The term is redundant in this context. It makes for a badly written article and thus a badly irritated Hrafn. If you don't want me changing everything then either (i) write it better, or (ii) discuss it first. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
  • You have convinced me re: the term 'educator'. I suggest that we agree to collaborate on the article. Your sense of how the wording should go is far better than mine. My interest in developing this particular article seems much stronger than yours, to understate the matter. Thus, your critical eye is valuable to the work on this article. I am convinced that your counsel re: this article, is very helpful. I think of it this way: imagine how inferior the article would be without your prodding and insisting. Thanks. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 21:23, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

August 2011

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Leonard R. Brand, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. Would you prefer I simply remove the inconsequential, soporific, irrelevant TRIVIA you insist on larding up this article with, instead of tagging it? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:55, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Look carefully at what I wrote about the amounts. The $50.00 was given in 1964. The award is still being given. As I have checked the amounts where the award is mentioned on various websites, the amount now, in 2011, is $250. This is still quite a small amount compared to other scholarship amounts. Another interesting feature of this book scholarship: The money is to be used for reference books not textbooks. Obviously, the author wanted to encourage scholarship in biology. (As a youth, I received a $50 award from the Royal Ontario Museum to do ornithological research; a comparative study between the Brown Thrasher and the Catbird. I spent the whole amount on the research, film, blinds, etc.) The amount was small, but the recognition was wonderful. They liked my research, too, by the way. :) DonaldRichardSands (talk) 06:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Please read WP:NOR again -- this is just the sort of thing we're not meant to be doing. We go on what the source itself says, not bringing in a whole heap of personal-experience context into it. The world is full of things that feel important at the time, that really aren't appropriate material for an encyclopaedia. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes, but you're offering a rationale for why something should be in the article. In doing so I would expect you to place greater emphasis on what the source states ("$50") and less on fanciful interpretations of your own personal experiences. As I said: "the world is full of things that feel important at the time" -- this is not a basis for inclusion into an article. The prize might have felt wonderful to Brand at the time, but that does not make it into a noteworthy award. For a prominent scientists we should be looking at Guggenheim Fellowships and the like -- not obscure undergraduate awards. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:55, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Biographical material is not always used to demonstrate prominence.
  • I don't consider Brand to be a prominent scientist in the way the leaders in their field are prominent. Brand is noteworthy mainly because he is a creationist who does respectable scientific research. The article should not seek to establish his prominence as a great scientist. He is not a leader in any of those field mentioned in the lead. But, he has done research in these areas and has been discussed among scientists for his controversial conclusions. His fellow naturalistic scientists recognize him as someone who does respectable, thought-provoking research and does it well. Creationists respect him because he is a respected scientist and a man of faith. The article needs to demonstrate both. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 07:16, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
  • If he is prominent as a creationist, then why does he get only a bare-mention-in-a-footnote in The Creationists, and none whatsoever on more recent surveys of the topic (those by Forrest, Ruse or Pennock, for example)? Notability cannot be established from primary sources -- you must demonstrate that the topic is given "significant coverage" by reliable independent sources. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:27, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
  • His prominence is in the fact that he is one of a handful of creationists who are respected scientists published in peer-reviewed science journals. Also, within the creationist communities he is a popular presenter. In those Creationist journals that you do not consider reliable scientific journals (which they are not) Brand receives favorable mention and eager defence. By the way, those Creation Journals are reliable within their realm. Some of them, at least, carefully check their sources, etc. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 07:39, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
  • What part of "you must demonstrate that the topic is given 'significant coverage' by reliable independent sources" did you fail to understand? As I point out below, "notability", in the Wikipedia context does not mean weightiness or substance (if it did, we wouldn't have nearly as many articles on Hollywood actors) but rather explicitly means depth-of-independent-coverage-we-can-base-an-article-on. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:48, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Civility Barnstar
I know we haven't always agreed about content, but I've always respected your professional attitude in working with other editors. Keep at it. Mojoworker (talk) 23:37, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

August 2011 redux

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to Leonard R. Brand. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 01:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

  • I believe that adding content should always be sourced. Changing the wording depends on why it was changed, doesn't it? But I don't want to pick at what you have said. In general, I agree with your concern and will try to do better. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 22:33, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Looks like we have to do some research to get good references...Simbagraphix (talk) 12:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes. Hrafn is usually right in his counsel; here as well. I figure that the search for good references has just begun. The emphasis is on secondary sources, of course. I have noted that there are at least one hundred secondary sources where other scientists reference Brand in their reports; i.e. the process of peer review. This peer review process yields lots of secondary sources on Brand and his work. I have barely begun to examine them. Most of them can only be accessed by a subscription. This article on Brand could get quite expensive if we suscribed to all the articles which reference him. lol. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 16:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I can save you a whole bunch of money and time by telling you that those sources would probably not meet WP requirements, unless they are REVIEW articles which deal substantially with Brand and discuss specifically the key role he has played either in the field of science, or in the field of creationism. That's what "secondary source" means. 100 cites is not a lot for a scientist who has risen to the position of department chairman, and I'm going to hazard a guess that most of those cites are self-cites or in-house sites by colleagues at his own university. Those cites are, of course, worthless for establishing notability.

Your time would be better spent looking through academic books on the creationist movement, like Numbers, for anything that indicates that Brand has played a major role in the movement. Or for news articles primarily about Brand in nationwide or worldwide independent news outlets like, ideally, the New York Times, the LA Times, the Washington Post, or NPR, or widely read science magazines like, ideally, Science or Nature, or popular science magazines like Scientific American. The more widely read and repected the source is, and the more the story deals with Brand and the role he has played specifically, the more likely it will meet WP requirements. "Mutual adoration" sources from within the creationist movement, from within his own university or circle of colleagues, or from withing the SDA community are, on the other hand, not likely to count much towards establishing notability. University press releases are also just about worthless, as are book reviews and stories in local news sources, or any source in which Brand is just briefly mentioned.

Like I said, right now, the ONLY acceptable source you have that establishes notability is Numbers, and, unfortunately, Brand just rates a footnote there. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Hi Dominus, thanks for your guidance on this. You have described some really excellent sources to establish notability beyond a doubt. I will see what I can find of such calibre. I have noted that there are many unchallenged Wikipidia articles that don't rise to the level you have described. This is why I suggest that Wikipedia seems to acknowledge (tacitly at least) that an article is acceptable on various levels of notability. Notice this quote: DonaldRichardSands (talk) 22:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
  • "Articles are rated "Featured", "A-Class", "Good", "B-Class", "Start", and "Stub" and "Needed". A Featured Article is the highest possible assessment, and requires a community consensus demonstrated at Featured Article Candidates per the guidelines of What Is a Featured Article?. An A-Class Article is very well-written, nearly comprehensive and approaching excellence, but may still have significant issues. A Good Article meets community consensus at Good Article Nominations per the guidelines of What Is a Good Article?. A B-Class Article is significantly informative, but may have major organizational, style, scope or comprehensiveness problems. A Start-Class Article is somewhat informative but is missing large amounts of information and may be in poor shape overall. A Stub-Class Article is barely informative and fails to inform the reader of most important aspects of the topic. A Needed Article does not exist." Source: Wikipedia:WikiProject Regional and national music/Assessment This source has summarized Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment DonaldRichardSands (talk) 22:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Obviously, a stub class does not satisfy all the notability requirements. The interesting part is that articles are development by discussion and consensus such as what we are doing, and others. This is why it is so important to assume good faith. I appreciate the tone of your advice here, it is really helpful, as are your particular points of advice. Thanks DonaldRichardSands (talk) 22:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC) DonaldRichardSands (talk) 22:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
This may be helpful from WP:STUB: "Note that if a small article has little properly sourced information, or if its subject has no inherent notability, it may be deleted or be merged into another relevant article." My anecdotal experience is that stubs generally are left alone. Why go through all the hassle of AfD when the creator will probably just recreate it anyway? An editor has to be pretty motivated to nom a stub for AfD.
@Hrafn -- do you think it's time to stop templating Donald? – Lionel (talk) 04:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Examples of Keep decisions

Hi, in this section I hope to document recent Keep decisions re: AfD. I am not sure where to present this, so I have decided that my own talk page is the least controversial place for this. If any other WP editor wants to discuss or add to the documentation, you are more than welcome to provide input. Thanks.

1. Seventh-day Adventism in popular culture

  • Notability was the concern. I suggest that Resident Anthropologist probably still stands by his concerns. But, since Wikipedia is managed by consensus, the decision was to Keep. Three is a rather small consensus. But, there was no controversy. If we compare the discussions for deletion on the Leonard R. Brand article or the earlier discussion on the Generation of Youth for Christ article, this article got off quite easy. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 01:53, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Since you asked, I recommend putting this on a WP:SUBPAGE such as user:DonaldRichardSands/Examples of keep decisions. – Lionel (talk) 03:37, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Lionel, thanks for the nudge. I have created the article.

To all interested editors: All discussions of my documenting Keep decisions should take place at user:DonaldRichardSands/Examples of keep decisions from now on. Thanks. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 04:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

August 2011 Re-redux

Please do not add unsourced content, as you did to Leonard R. Brand. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Specifically, please do not restore unsourced/poorly-sourced material without first addressing my objections to it on article talk. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Conflict Resolution is Needed

Hrafn, I have started a section at Leonard R. Brand Talk Page in an attempt to solve what is obviously a conflict edit situation. You are not an administrator here on Wikipedia and have no authority to make all the demands that you are making. I want to just go and seek a third party's help. But the the WP policy says we need to try to solve this conflict between us first. So, let's talk. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 04:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Brand AfD

Hey Donald, thought I'd drop my $.02. I hate to say it but the Keeps as of yet haven't been convincing. IMO you need at the very least 2 independent sources which each devote several sentences to Brand. 3 would clinch it. Short of that prepare yourself... – Lionel (talk) 04:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Hi Lionel, there is so much more that can be established regarding Brand. But when I add material and seek to develop it, the one who has nominated it for deletion undermines the very effort to save the article. How can the one who nominates it for deletion edit in good faith? It doesn't make sense. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 04:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I know, I know. You're an editor, not a wikilawyer. What are the 3 strongest independent sources for the article? (Doesn't have to currently be in the article.) – Lionel (talk) 08:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  • The most comprehensive discussion of GRI, including Brand, is Toumey's book. The next is Lockley. The Baldwin quote establishes Brand as notable in the Adventist community. The fact that Kurt Wise wrote the preface for Brand's book helps establish his notability in the creationist community. Toumey does that as well on the last few pages of his report. Then, there are a whole bunch of Adventist Archives material which I have only begun to discover. Again among Adventists, Brand has established programs and taught courses for a whole generation of high school and college teachers. He led the way in upgrading the church with regards to programs in geology and paleontology. One source which I have just discovered includes Brand on a Loma Linda team, led by Neufeld, who studied and concluded the the Paluxy trackways did not include human footprints. This studied was led by Neufeld in 1970, the year the Brand got his PhD. I am taking a break. I am tired. Will try to remember to put the link for Toumey on here then. You know that I regard my critic in a positive way, but this last reverting of stuff was very difficult. I put hours and hours into finding and preparing paragraph material and then to have it messed with in a major way is hard to deal with. Anyway, thanks for keeping in touch. :) DonaldRichardSands (talk) 08:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Toumey, Christopher P. (1994). God's own scientists: creationists in a secular world. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. pp. 131–141. ISBN 0-8135-2043-6.
I can't tell if Toumey is substantial coverage, but put him in anyway. Lockley looks solid. Baldwin and the SDA sources are fine for article content, but won't count for notability. You need 1 more independent source. Anyway, at this stage of AfD I recommend that you put in quotes for Toumey, Lockley and TBA 3rd source. For good measure put in a quote for Baldwin, too. How do you put in a quote? Inside the {{citation}} template add a passage from the source using quote=. See [9].
Here's my patented, secret "Keep" strategy. Don't tell anyone... Why quotes? It's only for the closing admin. You see the closing admin will first look at the Afd. He'll see all the Deletes. That's bad. Then he'll look at the article. He'll see 3 quotes from independent sources. That's good. He'll assume the sources were added after people voted. Then he'll close No consensus.
Anyway I'll review the article and if I feel it's notable I'll vote Keep, and add one of my super-duper "Note to closing admin" posts. This is a long shot but you never know. It's been 7 days: the fat lady is warming up.– Lionel (talk) 09:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Lionel, thanks for your advice. This is my last harrah, I hope. Re: your advice, I like the strategy. The Brand article has taught me that I don't enjoy edit warring. I prefer working with a friendly team who know what they need to do to make a good article. This Brand article has convinced me that working on an article with hostile editors is not my cup of tea. If the article is kept, I will enjoy working on it some more. Meanwhile, I am going to enjoy a much needed rest. Thanks again. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 10:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Re: your comment on my talkpage, without Toumey and 1 more source it will be deleted. IMO you invested alot of effort into the article without solidifying it's notability. An article that is one sentence long will be kept, as long as it has substantial mention in 3 ind. sources. Anyway if you're looking for friendly editors who never fight and all live in peace and harmony I'd like to suggest a few gay rights articles. We could realy use your thoroughness. What do you think? – Lionel (talk) 01:52, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Lionel for your opinions. Re the gay rights article, how do I find it? My views have been shaped by discussion with some gay friends who also belong to the same faith community as I do. It is not a conventional view. Anyway, let's discuss on the talk page or on a dedicated page here. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 02:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Brand Article

I have decided that I have expended enough energy on trying to save the Brand article. If the decision is to keep it, I will enjoy working on it some more. It is just too hard to fuss with another editor to this extent. IMO, Dr. Brand is a notable figure in America, unassuming but a very interesting person who's story is worthy of notice. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 09:34, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Looks like there are other editors working on it to build it up, so keep it on your list to check to see how its going.Simbagraphix (talk) 08:29, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
What about this mention? Any thoughts? https://cgi.marquiswhoswho.com/OnDemand/Default.aspx?last_name=Brand&first_name=Leonard
See Marquis Who's Who#Selection_process
Marquis describe their selection process as rigorous. Some dispute their process. How many SDA Biology professors make the list? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 14:32, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Marquis Who's Who has been discussed several times at WP:RSN before [[10]] [[11]] [[12]], and the consensus was that, though it may be a reliable source for biographical details (with caution), it is completely worthless for establishing notability. It comes pretty close to being a vanity publication, containing essentially self-published information. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:39, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Analysis of Wikipedia:Notability (academics)'s Criteria as related to the Leonard R. Brand article

I have decided to put this analysis on a sub page so that I can section it better. The sub page can be found at:

User talk:DonaldRichardSands/Analysis of WP:Notability (academics)'s Criteria as related to the Leonard R. Brand article

Cheers DonaldRichardSands (talk) 16:57, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Something to do

Regarding your statement on your user page:

"Something to do:

Find out who among the Commissioned Officers, the WP admins, have experience on articles dealing with the Creationst-Naturalistic Science articles."

I'd be very careful with this. You blundered into forum shopping, and it looks as if you are about to blunder into admin shopping. Ignoring other editors because they count for you as mere "other personnel" is a serious mistake. Hrafn generously spent a great deal of time trying to show you the ropes, but you blew it. If I were you, I'd go WP:MENTOR shopping. And, of course, read up intensively on the policies. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi Dominus, thanks for the counsel. Let me examine what you have said: DonaldRichardSands (talk) 04:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I'd be very careful with this. Thank you. I do believe in being careful. You will notice on my subpage where I analyze the Leonard R. Brand notability situation. This is being formally studied at his AfD page. Yet, I need to get my thinking clear, so I established the page. I can't get my thinking clear very easily when some of you Dutch Uncles are always in my face telling me where I am wrong. Of course I am wrong. I know that I am deficient far more than you will ever know. I know how long it takes me to develop an inadequate paragraph, let alone a good one. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 04:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
  • You blundered into forum shopping. You are right that I did not know what forum-shopping was. You have read where I carefully explained myself and even invited an admin to correct me. But, rather than an admin correcting me, you did, in your seemingly mean-spirited manner. But, I learned about forum-shopping. I have you to thank. I don't think I was forum-shopping, but I can see how one could think that. I sure would like a few admins to weigh in on what I did. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 04:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
  • It looks as if you are about to blunder into admin shopping. I do appreciate the caution. How does a person shop for Mentors? I need two admin Mentors. One who leans toward naturalistic views and one who understands, and perhaps is, a conservative person of faith. I recognize that some of you think that all people of conservative faith are on the fringe of science. If all the editors here at Wikipedia think this way, then Wikipedia is in trouble. I am concerned about the subtle, and not so subtle, faith-bashing. I need to talk with some experienced editors, admins, who have faith. I recently found that this tag exists, its wonderful if it works:
I need to get their counsel on how to survive among you that seem atheistic and if not, seem extremely harsh. IMO, the naturalistic editors who oppose editors of faith behave in a very harsh manner. Why can't naturalistic-leaning editors assume good faith? What is so hard about being nice to us Fringe people, if that is what we are? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 04:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
  • About Leonard Brand. Here is a scientist who has become notable because he is kind. There are a handful of book authors who, when they mention Brand, they do so to talk about his good manners. Brand reports many good friendship with his naturalistic colleagues. Can I report that I have some naturalistic-leaning editor 'good' friends. No, the ones I know are mean to me. They tell me things I need to know, but in a no WikiLove manner. Do you think I enjoy that? Do you think that things will go better if you speak mean to me? Where is your understanding of psychology? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 04:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Ignoring other editors because they count for you as mere "other personnel" is a serious mistake. I have not ignored my equals. :) I am on the rank of "other personnel". The ones who I have strongly disagreed with could be ranked as 'other personnel' as well. This is true for many who agree with me on things, too. You have noticed that I strongly rely on administrator oversight. I need it. I feel bullied and beat up on by my equals. No one is inferior to me. But some of my equals seem to think they are my bosses, or lords. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 04:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
  • If you look over my discussion entries on any page, I do not ignore anyone. It is true that I did not respond on the talk pages to Hrafn as I should have. It took severely discourteous behavior on his part to wake me up to this need to use the talk pages. I wanted to go straight to the dispute resolution process, but the rule is that we had to talk first. So we did. We understand each other better. We still disagree. Rather than going to the dispute process, I decided I need to simmer down and step away. It is hard to step away, because I like this Wikipedia community, even you and Hrafn. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 04:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
  • The first person to address my non-wikipedia ways was administrator Cactus Writer. I said some silly things early on. He taught me by asking me to explain myself. He helped me make the articles better and told me his concerns. This is how administrators act, as far as I have seen so far. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 04:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Administrators have to go through an assessment to become administrators. If an editor wants to become an administrator, it would be wise for that editor to learn how to use good judgment and good manners. Both you and Hrafn have already demonstrated to me that you are knowledgeable editors. I have not worked with you very long. One time I took an hour or two and studied Hrafn's edits and discussions. He is a controversial editor. But, almost every time someone complained about Hrafn and an admin got involved, the admin could see nothing wrong with Hrafn's advice on Wiki policy. Also, one admin pointed out that when Hrafn has been involved with an article it almost always turns out to be a better article. So, I have concluded that Hrafn knows what he's talking about when it comes to Wiki policy. I am not convinced that he knows how to apply those policy's in every case. The Ecklund dispute is an example where we don't agree. I would love to get a few admins to weigh in on our discussion. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 04:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Hrafn generously spent a great deal of time trying to show you the ropes, but you blew it. Yes, and I am very grateful for his help. Hopefully, Hrafn will not ignore all my edits in the future because I 'blew it'. Even this note from you shows you care, doesn't it? I have accepted the Wikipedia idea of getting one hands dirty. Just start and other will help. If I had known of the {{in use}} it would have saved some conflict. When I was working on fixing an article. Hrafn was changing things while I was working. Both you and Hrafn seem to know the rules. But life is more than rules, it is relationships, too. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 04:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I'd go WP:MENTOR shopping. Do you want to be my Mentor? I think you would be a good one, especially if you used a bit more WikiLove. But, even if you tell me that I am an abject failure, if we agree to get into a Mentor relationship, I think it would work. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 04:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
I saw your "help me" request above, but I'm not sure if you actually meant to use it to ask for help, or were just showing the template to another user. Is there a specific question that you have? I'll watch this page, so please let me know if there is something specific you need. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:20, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Hi Qwyrxian, Thanks for the quick response. I was mainly trying it out. I found this recent dispute has helped me learn what I don't know. Let's try one: I have been cautioned not to admin shop. I need some historical input: Without naming names, can you tell how you have addressed admin shopping. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 14:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Brand

Welcome back to the world of the anti-religious and "creation" bias. Thanks for your valiant efforts, especially when certain editors are less than affable to work with. Keep up the good work and I look forward to seeing more of your balance. Wikipedia needs more editors like you.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 00:51, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Brand article, help request, re: more time is needed

I wrote the following on the AfD page for the Leonard R. Brand article. This is the second time I have used the 'help me' tag. I would appreciate some thoughts on this idea, if it is allowed to do so for an article nominated for deletion. If not, I understand.
  • More time is needed. As I stand away from disputing the article, I continue to study about Brand. I plan to summarize my findings here within a few days. But, I have this brain wave. :) If the admins who decide on this article can grant me time to demonstrate what can be done, say for a month without editorial interference (but lots of counsel), I believe that I can demonstrate the notability and wisdom of a WP article on Brand. I don't know the protocol on such a request and admin guidance is always welcomed. Maybe, some sandbox time would help. When I first discovered this article, it was already nominated for deletion. I would like to work in a detailed fashion similar to what I have done on the history sections of Graham Maxwell, Southern Adventist University, Andrews University, etc. I don't consider any of these articles perfect, but they demonstrate the detail work that gives depth to any study. It is just a proposal. In the end, I will support the deciding admins conclusion. If the article is deleted after the month, I will still have learned about doing research and working on a really tough WP case. Cheers DonaldRichardSands (talk) 16:11, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
If the decision of the AfD is to delete, it is most unlikely that the closing administrator will defer deletion for a month to let you find sources; but if you ask, he will probably agree to userfy the article - move it into a page in your user space - where you can work on it. The way back from that, if the article is improved sufficiently to overcome the reasons for deletion, is first to ask the closing administrator for permission to re-post it; if he does not agree, there is a process at WP:Deletion review where you can argue your case. Note that Deletion Review is not a chance to re-hash all the arguments from the AfD: it is for arguing either that the closing admin did not interpret correctly the arguments presented there, or that the article has now been improved enough to overcome the reasons for deletion. JohnCD (talk) 16:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
I'll just add... IF the article is deleted by all means userfy it and continue to add sources as they become available (and it only needs a couple). No reason to lose your work. I've seen articles userfied for a year before re-creating. Yes...recreation. As soon as you think Lazarus is ready move it to mainspace as a real article. – Lionel (talk) 03:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Summary of Brand article's notability

This section is for me to list my observations on the notability of the Brand article. I want this section to remain my own work without any editing by others. I invite any interested editor to discuss this in the next section. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 16:21, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Brand as a notable figure.

1. As an Academic, he is the head of a notable university biology department.
  • The LLU biology department ranks 160th, along with 21 other notable university biology departments. (US News and World Report) see AfD discussion. LLU's bio department is the only Seventh-day Adventist University to get on that list. Andrews University ranks 191 overall as a university.
  • Brand has headed LLU's Biology Department for over 20 years, almost uninterrupted since the late 1970s. This fact links him to the success of the department. On his initiative, the biology department has grown. In the late 1970s, he persuaded the leaders of the Adventist church to approve his plan to offer a master's program that included courses in geology and paleontology. The department now offers a Master's degree in Geology as well as a doctorate in Biology. LLU is an accredited institution. Thus, the Biology department under Brand's leadership has been scrutinized by the accrediting board.
  • I suspect that the LLU Biology Department's Geology masters program is the only one offered by an accredited organization dedicated to a Young Earth Creationist worldview. If there are others, I would like to know.
2. Brand is among a handful of Young Earth Creationists who have done peer-reviewed field research in paleotology.
3. His Biological studies of mice and chipmunks have been cited in varioius books written about mammals.
4. His field work in Wyoming has led to his developing of geographical map-making for the areas he has studied.
  • The Wyoming Geological Survey has cited six research papers dealing with the making of maps authored by Brand.
5. Brand is notable for the tone he brings to the Creation-Evolution debate.
  • Brand has received mention in seven books, not published by the creationist community, discovered to date, August 13, 2011. One has not been put into the article, yet, i.e. Toumey, see the talk page. Most of these books mention him for the tone of his debate. Creationist Kurt Wise has also noted Brand's civil ways.
6. Brand is respected in the Creationist community
  • Veteran Creationist, Kurt Wise, wrote the preface to Brand's book on the philosophy of science.
  • Even though he has criticized the scientific assertions of his fellow creationists as being unscientific, they still speak well of him in their publications and as reported by anthropologist Toumey.
  • The Creationist Community quotes Brand to defend their assertions about Creation.
7. On matters of biology, origins, geology and paleontology, Brand is very influential within the Seventh-day Adventist Church
  • Brand has not only championed creationism but he has also led the SDA church to be careful in their scientific assertions. The Geoscience Research Institute (GRI) and Brand stand united in their concern for understanding science and the need to not make unscientific assertions about science.
  • Brand has led the way, along with GRI, in instructing Adventists to be civil with their naturalistic acquaintances. There certainly is further to go, but the Loma Linda earth scientists are leading the way. Brand has educated a generation of Adventist scientists who now serve the higher educational institutions of the church. His philosophy permeates Adventist academia.
  • At the 1995 Annual Council of SDAs, John Baldwin PhD professor from the church's seminary applauded Brand and GRI for their research. He said their work helps the church promote its message to the world.
  • Many Adventists take satisfaction in the fact that one of their own has been respected for his scientific methodologies.
  • His philosophy of science ideas have been widely published in church journals.

Editor comments on the previous summary

Young Earth Creationist (YEC) Geologists and Paleontologists

This section is for listing and describing the teachings of these people. As is becoming my practice, I have establish a comment section just below this. Please comment in that section. Thanks DonaldRichardSands (talk) 19:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

In alphabetical order:

Steven A. Austin

Leonard R. Brand (Cornell) Loma Linda University

  • I assume that at geology/paleontology conventions, Brand presents his methodologies and conclusions without citing the Bible as a reference. :)

Marcus Ross (University of Rhode Island) Liberty University

  • Marcus Ross has been noted for lecturing like as a typical geologist to geologists and he reveals his YEC view to creationist audiences. Some questions have been asked:

Kurt Wise (Harvard)

  • Kurt Wise, "arguably the world’s leading young-age creationist paleontologist." Wise received his Ph.D. in paleontology from Harvard University. His doctoral supervisor was the late, renowned evolutionary theorist Dr. Stephen Jay Gould. Dr. Wise is currently a professor at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville. His wrote the book, Faith, Form, and Time (Broadman and Holman, 2002).
  • At an Elmhurst College event, Dr. Wise gave a presentation after which a panel responded. The panel included Dr. Alan Gishlick (Ph.D., Yale), a professor of paleontology at Gustavus Adolphus College. He represented the National Center for Science Education. Professor Mladen Turk of Elmhurst College, a specialist in the interface between science and religion. Dr. Wise offered a rejoinder to the panel presentations and then took written questions from the audience.
  • Source: Leading Young-Earth Creationist to Lecture at Elmhurst College
  • Readers in the Chicagoland region may be interested in the following announcement from Dr. A. Andrew Das, Associate Professor of Religious Studies at Elmhurst College:

http://christianmind.blogspot.com/2008/02/leading-young-earth-creationist-to.html



more later

Comments for YEC Geologists and Paleontologists section above

If you have some thoughts to share on the above section, please post them here, thanks:

Is it okay to compare these two articles in an AfD discussion?

{{help me}} this doesn't work, it seems. I will try the original again.

{{help me}}

I have an additional question, maybe more. I am not sure I did this right. I cannot find the original help me-helped to change it again to help me, so I am putting a new one up.

My 2nd question is below the answer to the first one.

#Helpers, this is just my third seeking for help in this manner. The service is impressive but I feel like I am over-using it. If I am, please let me know.
No, you aren't over using it, we are happy to help. Puffin Let's talk! 11:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Question: I have posted the following on the AfD for Leonard R. Brand. Is it okay to present the comparison as I have?

  • I am not asking that you comment on the debate. But I do want an opinion on whether it is proper to compare these two as I have suggested?

This is my AfD post:

Comment: Compare Marcus Ross article with Leonard R. Brand

  • I realize I am bringing to this discussion a controversial post. If I remember correctly WP policy does not encourage comparing articles, remember 1826 Miller. Except: Wikipedia Policy does say that it is a goal for all articles to be of uniform notability, etc. WP policy asks that the focus be on the reasons for the difference not just the difference. Admins, I submit to your judgment on this. I accept the guidance of other civilized editors as well. Now, look over these two WP articles. They are both YECs. They are both Paleontolgists. Compare the bibliographies. Compare the complexities of the case for notability. Compare the quality of notable references. I like the Marcus Ross article. It is brief and clean. The Brand article is still cumbersome and in its rough stage. Any thoughts on reasons.
  • #Hrafn: You actively helped develop the Marcus Ross article. What is the difference, in your view, between the notability of the two scientists? Best Regards DonaldRichardSands (talk) 20:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Such a comparison will not cut much ice. Because the quality of our 3,500,000 articles is very variable, arguments on the lines of "You must keep this article because it's better than that one" or "If you delete this you will have to delete all those" are generally disregarded, and will probably be met with "WP:WAX" which is a shortcut for What about article x?, a section of Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. The general principle is that the discussion is only about this article and whether it meets the standards. JohnCD (talk) 22:13, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
John, Thanks for you thoughts on this. Your help is appreciated. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 22:20, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi John or new helper:

In education jargon, I am involved here in concept development. Some day I hope to reach concept attainment. You can help, I think. :) DonaldRichardSands (talk) 02:00, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Question #2
Have you ever seen the exceptional use of comparison described in the quotes I have cited? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 02:00, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

If so, can we examine one or two examples to see what kind of exceptions were considered? I have accepted that we need to focus on the Brand article, and, I have been doing that. But, I am trying to learn the WP system. The quotes I provided clearly state that sometimes comparisons are important. For examples: When? Why? Where? Who said? etc. Again, I have found this process quite educational. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 01:55, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Question #3
What am I doing wrong with the 'help' stuff? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 02:02, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Q1 is, I think, already answered?
  • Q2 you can say just about anything you like in an AfD, as long as it is polite. Your reasoning may or may not be disregarded by others - and, as JohnCD wrote earlier - comparisons often are. But remember, it's just a discussion, and there are no hard-and-fast rules here. Even if it's deleted, you can ask for a userspace-copy, and could work on it further; deletion isn't as final as it sounds.
  • Q3 it would be better if you could ask any new {{helpme}} in a == New Section == on the page. It was a bit hard for me, here, to see what had happened with previous help requests; remember, it is quite likely each time that a different person will respond - so please present a single question, referring to previous questions or other previous comments as appropriate (preferable with a WP:DIFF). But don't worry too much; as long as we can understand the question, that's fine.  Chzz  ►  17:06, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Stuff

Just took a count at AfD and unbelievably the !votes are evenly split! You've put a lot of work into him and if you find a sympathetic admin those Keeps will give them some cover to close "No consensus." All the same read up on userfying articles just to be on the safe side.
On another note I was wondering if you would like to co-nominate Southern Adventist with me for WP:GAN? – Lionel (talk) 12:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Tell me about co-nominating. How does it compare with, say, you nominating and me helping. Did you notice when BW was an editor, he got me to help him with the research. We worked on the Heather Knight article and it got into the DYK. Anyway, I will be pleased to help however you feel would be best. Back to the AfD, how long does the deciding admin wait before deciding. Also, you may have read where one editor took exception to my making a difference between admins and other editors. I compare the admins to the commissioned officers and the non-admins to the non-commissioned officer or other personnel. If you want to give your opinion on that, it would be interesting. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 14:00, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
It is not a vote; number of votes make no difference. Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion.  Chzz  ►  17:07, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
It's not a vote, but then people do vote at AfD, if you get my meaning. The AfD will close any day now. I think a better analogy is citizen and judge. They "hear cases" whether it's behavior e.g. 3RRN, or content e.g. AfD. Some are janitors and go around cleaning up the mess that we leave, hahaha.
Back to SAU, if I nom and you help I get to put a star on my userpage and you get stand around with a dumb look on your face, haha. Seriously, with the kind of work you do it would be a travesty not to co-nom you. It looks like Bello took all the credit for the DYK and the GA. If true then he is a selfish SOB. Anyway do you have more pics of SAU? No hurry I know you have a lot on your plate---the GA review won't be for a few weeks.– Lionel (talk) 03:10, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Hi Lionel, BW did mention me several times. It was the strength of his initiative that the article reached acceptable status. BW asked me early on to help with the discovery of sources. That seems to be my strong point. As Hrafn can attest, my writing precision leaves much to be desired. I am okay with a co-nomination. It is kind of you to think the way you do. I think it would be enjoyable to work toward that goal. (I never could understand BW's behavior. With me, we worked together so well. With some other editors, his behavior was not good, to say the least.) DonaldRichardSands (talk) 03:20, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

What makes Leonard R. Brand notable.

This first part is for me to explore the notability of Brand

If you want to help me think reply in the next section

Reply section for What makes Leonard R. Brand notable

You have messages Qwyrxian Qwyrxian (talk) 01:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Mentor

Sorry for not replying sooner, but you had (and still have) a "do not edit" message box on the section I wanted to rely to.

Congratulations on finding a mentor. He's a good one, and I see he's given you plenty of good advice.

Consider this a third opinion (3O). I've learned a lot about how WP works by reading A LOT of article talk page archives and closely observing certain experienced editors, one of which is Hrafn. Pay close attention to what he is showing you. He's an expert on sourcing, and the lessons you learn from him will help you a lot in the future. Granted, he can be brusque and may lose his patience at times, but he is a very experienced and knowledgeable editor who knows what he is talking about, and he wants you to be the best editor that you can be. He is not bullying you or being uncivil. Don't lose your cool again and waste a valuable opportunity to learn from the best. I've not gotten involved in the Brand article myself because I'm sitting this one out as an observer, but I have to say that Hrafn's edits have been well intentioned and well justified, and by-the-book. I have to disagree with the accusation that he is "wiki-lawyering" you. I know you've invested a lot of time on the article and are feeling frustrated, but that's all a part of the learning process.

One suggestion. You might want to clean up the AfD page by removing some of the off-topic material you've added there. Don't forget that the closing administrator will have to wade through all that to find the actual votes, and I don't think he's going to be too happy about that, especially when he sees the stuff on forum shopping. In short, it doesn't help your case.

I notice you like metaphors. In the future, remember that an AfD page is a lot like a courtroom. There is a certain decorum, and people are very sensitive about procedural mistakes. Stay on topic, and restrain your penchant for prolixity. Concise, terse and to-the-point arguments are usually the most compelling. Losing your cool, defensiveness and playing the victim almost always backfire. Throwing mud at the wall and hoping some sticks is also a poor strategy.

Keep on learning about how things work here on WP, and, with the help of your mentor and helpful editors like Hrafn, you will be better able to concentrate your efforts in an efficient and effective manner. I'm going to stop observing as soon as the AfD is closed, but if you ever want, you can always contact me on my talk page. Good luck! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Thank you Dominus for your counsel. By the way, I have never accused Hrafn of wiki lawyering. As you know, I have expressed my appreciation for Hrafn help more than once. I can agree that he knows his rule book. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 08:09, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm the one who described his tactics as wikilawyering. And Donald he is bullying you and being uncivil. "waste a valuable opportunity to learn from the best" Are we talking about the same guy? Are you kidding me? I've "worked with" Hfran on 2 articles... So I know how "good" he really is.... Absurd nonsense.– Lionel (talk) 08:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
@DRS: Always glad to be of service. I know that you did not accuse Hrafn of wiki-lawyering. I was fully aware that another editor did so on your mentor's talk page (see above post). Glad you appreciate Hrafn's help. I see they just closed the AfD pending decision, so it's too late to clean up. Again, good luck, and happy editing! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
If I may chip in here, I do not agree with Dominus' suggestion to remove extraneous additions from the AfD page. Refactoring discussions like this is frowned on, because later contributors' opinions are affected by what they have read above, and because once refactoring is permitted there is always the temptation to alter things to make them look better for your "case". Yes, it is a mistake to flood an AfD with TL;DR material, but if you want to withdraw things you have added the most you should do is "strike through" them by putting <s> at the beginning and </s> at the end. The unfortunate closing admin will need to read them anyway. JohnCD (talk) 09:02, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Odds on Brand?

I'm giving 2 to 1 -- No consensus!!! – Lionel (talk) 08:48, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Are you baiting here for a reason? Some of your messages on my talk also seemed a bit pointy....Qwyrxian (talk) 08:50, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Thought it would be fun to start a pool. Is that against policy? – Lionel (talk) 08:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Verdict is in!!! The result: you bored him into no consensus, lol! – Lionel (talk) 09:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia and Kohlberg

I will take a few moments to highlight some learnings:

  • The freedom of Wikipedia is its strong point and its weak point.
  • Assume Good Faith works at home, work, the grocery store, everywhere.
  • No firm, inflexible rules means working from principles. Kohlberg's fourth stage of moral development is law and order morality. His sixth is the principled conscience. Wikipedia strives for number six, but many of us are on number four. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 09:12, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

more later, after my snooze. :) DonaldRichardSands (talk) 09:12, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

QiGong

Anyone here know about QiGong?

Yesterday, I noticed this middle-age man sitting in a prominent section of lawn near city hall sitting cross-legged with hands in a yoga-like prayer position. He seemed friendly and I have been in a conversant mood lately, with everyone, so I stopped and sat with him, and we talked.

He said he is involved with Chi Kung and noticed my energy, my interest in things and my tension; a very observant fellow. As people walked by, they would often say hi to him, and/or he to them. The lawn was along a busy pedestrian thoroughfare. I observed his sensitivity to people and was really impressed. I told him about my conversant mood/lifestyle and about my recent wonderful visit to the Toronto waterfront, Queens Quay, the Yo Yo Ma Music Garden, etc. Be careful of downtown Toronto, he warned, some people don't like talking and they may get violent towards you. (Sounds like some people at Wikipedia, lol. ) Advice noted. The little piece of lawn was his meditation place. I asked him if the police have ever asked him to move. Oh no, he said, they like me here. Kind of like a volunteer security guard. :)

Anyway, here is the lead from the Wikipedia article about the discipline:

Qigong or chi kung (气功) is the Chinese philosophy and practice of aligning breath, physical activity and awareness for mental, spiritual and corporeal health, as well as the development of human potential.[3] It includes aspects of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chinese martial arts[4], Daoism and Buddhism and thus purportedly the spiritual awakening to one's true nature.[5]

The first part sounds like part of what my faith community calls its "health message". The last part sounds eclectic; a gathering of oriental thought and practice.

Any thoughts? Put them below this line, thanks. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 16:29, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Sounds rejuvenating.– Lionel (talk) 09:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Sandboxes

In response to your last comment in Talk:Leonard R. Brand#Cactus mice, might I suggest that you create yourself a 'sandbox', in which you can edit, preview & refine to your heart's content without anybody troubling you over whether your intermediate results meet Wikipedia policy (I see that you already have one -- but you can always create yourself another if the first is already in use). Then when you think you've got the section/paragraph/whatever up to Wikipedia standards (reliable sources, nothing not explicitly contained in sources, full sentences, etc) you can transfer it to the mainspace article. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:41, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Yes. I was thinking similarly only on a grander scale. The article is changing. The studies I have been doing indicate, to me at least, that a biographical approach to Brand is better. Academically Brand is not very notable. He is a sound practitioner of scientific methods and has earned the respect of the scientific community. But most scientists have accomplished that. A simple biography is notable if the person is 'interesting' and 'unusual'. Brand certainly is that. There are four planks in my Brand outline:
  1. He is a respected scientist
  2. He is well-received by the creationist community even though he criticizes their unscientific assertions.
  3. The Adventist Church takes pride in this man of science.
  4. He uses his skills in research design to examine Ron Numbers, Walter Rae, and Jonathan Butler in his book The prophet and her critics. He has done this effectively enough, so much so that in the 2008 edition of the Prophetess of Health, Numbers addresses Brand and McMahon's work calling it Pseudoscience. Numbers wouldn't bother mentioning him if Brand's work was obscure and unimportant. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 08:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
  • This is the outline of my plans for an article about Brand. Several parts of his biography are developing for me. Adventist Archives is so varied and useful a source, it remains untapped, essentially. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 08:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I have never gotten your thoughts on the Graham Maxwell article. If I had the freedom to do so, the biographical information for Brand would resemble the detailed collection of data I provided for the Maxwell article. One of the hardest things to document in the Maxwell article was the controversy he faced from church leadership. Their silent treatment of him at his death speaks volumes. But, how can you document such subtle stuff. Church papers are very reliable on reporting positive news about their people. They are not very reliable in the reporting of controversy. It would be like a McDonald's newsletter. It is probably reliable in its positive chit chat about the who's who of the company. But someone looking for an open examination of a controversy, it can't be done with the institution's paper. In the Adventist church, all the mid-level conferences have produced their own paper for close to one hundred years. Tremendous detail, what you have considered trivia, can be garnered from all those sources available at Adventist archives. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 08:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
  • If I set up a subpage where I redevelop the article, I would want your skills as a Wikipedia editor helping me. As you know, my verbiage is counter-productive to success. Your persistent demand for better is necessary to my efforts, IMO. I think, I would start by reestablishing the outline at the time the decision to keep was made. I would leave the main article as it is. Watch how other editors work things. But leave it alone. If other editors would like to collect information from my subpage, I would be okay with that. But the main article is going in a different direction now. I like the team effort and I won't argue with anyone who works to improve the main article and has announced that is their intention. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 08:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I will finish. I guess on my own talk page I can ramble. Hrafn, I have enjoyed our working together and I have hated it. But, when I am philosophical about it, the enjoyment wins hands down. Thanks for this recent advice. Further thoughts are welcomed. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 08:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
You can't create a subpage of an article in mainspace. Try this user:DonaldRichardSands/Leonard R Sands. Just click on the redlink and start typing!
Donald do me a favor: before you embark on any extensive renovations of Brand please just find 2 more truly independent sources. Please do not work on this for hours and hours because in 1 month I guarantee you it will all be for naught if you don't find 2 more sources. Honestly with your talent you should be working on GA and FA articles, not this kind of junk.– Lionel (talk) 09:02, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
  • To help me compare, what are the sources acceptable so far. Let's make a list by authors. Perhaps a checklist.
  1. Ronald Numbers: identifies Brand
  2. Young and Stearley:
  3. Christopher Toumey: Interview GRI, considers Brand part of GRI
  4. Thomas McIver: PhD dissertation very similar to Toumey on GRI, says Brand is part of GRI
  5. Lockley: writes of the Coconino
  6. New Source: Ronald Numbers criticizes Brand's book about Ellen White, calling it Pseudoscience

I have started this: User:DonaldRichardSands/Leonard R. Brand drafts

Speedy deletion nomination of Leonard R. Brand/Sands' Draft

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Eeekster (talk) 08:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your recent contributions, such as Leonard R. Brand/Sands' Draft. Getting started creating new articles on Wikipedia can be tricky, and you might like to try creating a draft version first, which you can then ask for feedback on if necessary, without the risk of speedy deletion. Do make sure you also read help available to you, including Your First Article and the Tutorial. You might also like to try the Article Wizard, which has an option to create a draft version. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 08:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

School playground

Noticed your addition to your userpage. Keep in mind something that Kenatapi says: "the wheels of Wikijustice turn slowly." Look how long it took to get Bello off of Fountain's back. In any event something did come from the ANI report. The entire community is now aware of the DONTBITE that has been transpiring. And Hfran has been warned that next time he'll get blocked. – Lionel (talk) 08:39, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Exercise caution when moving stuff around on talk pages (see WP:REFACTOR). People can get touchy about that.– Lionel (talk) 10:49, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
I understand. Thanks for the caution. I noticed before you moved a section, you got my permission. These simple courtesy protocols are important for team building.
Hrafn may sometime be over zealous to the point of libel. See Talk:John Murray (science lecturer) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.164.94.85 (talk) 19:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Re: Leonard R. Brand article

Sure, if it's being kept for now I'd rather see it improved. But in the meantime I think there are still notability concerns that need to be addressed. I'll get back to you. — Hunter Kahn 01:13, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

  • If we are going to have a strong article, we need tough criticism; similar to the help Hrafn gave.
  • We have begun a section HERE on Brand's talk page addressing notability. Please join us and share your concerns. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 04:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Richard. But I do not have a lot of time to help out very much at the brand article. Like I said before, I was more of an observer, though I did give you helpful advice from time to time. As everyone has told you before, from Hrafn to Lionelt to the closing admistrator, the article is probably not going to survive the next AfD without solid sources to establish notability. You should concentrate your efforts on hunting for those, rather than on painting a burning house. A big pile of trivial sources is not going to make up for the lack of any solid sources. If you can't find solid sources after looking for so long, that probably means that there just aren't any out there, and that it's time to abandon the article. I know that's hard to do considering how much time and energy you've invested in the article. You'll have to decide for yourself whether your time and energy would be more constructively used in editing other articles, or on sticking with this one. Whatever you choose, I wish you all the best editing here on WP. Keep on learning and contributing. Good luck! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:24, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Hi Dominus, I understand. This Leonard R. Brand article is my first major experience seeking to save an article which seems almost beyond saving. The experiences I am gaining:
  1. Working knowledge of WP policies as I debate with other editors.
  2. Experience using the notice boards such as AfD, RSN and ANI, especially the concept of brevity and conciseness of input.
  3. Learning how to look for the truth of a matter even when presented in an unpleasant manner.
  4. Growing appreciation for Wikipedia's five pillars especially civility, flexibility in applying policy, and the need for a neutral point of view.
  5. How to work with very experienced editors who disagree with me and are almost always right.
  6. How to work with a mentor.
  7. How to accept my weakness as a writer and try to improve.
  8. How to format citations
  9. How to deliberately develop an editing team

DonaldRichardSands (talk) 16:18, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good! All that time you spent was not wasted. You've learned some valuable lessons. They'll serve you well! Happy editing! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:33, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Some further learnings. I think we all learn more on a topic as we edit. The Leonard R. Brand article has brought new people and concepts into my life: Kurt Wise, Martin Lockley, Steven A. Austin, Christopher Toumey, Elaine Ecklund, Taphonomy, Ichnology, Paleobiology, Creation Biology
more later, DonaldRichardSands (talk) 23:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Southern Adventist University

There is a discussion about sourcing occurring and your opinion would be appreciated.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 03:49, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Drrll (talk) 03:21, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Antillean Adventist University

Just a little background on before the Battle of Santa Clara. Che Guevera column had been surronded and the army was closing in. Desperately seeking a refuge they came across a small Adventist church. Only the church deacon was there and he agreed to help but they had to put away their guns, which they did by hiding them in a well. The deacon took them to a house and hid them, and brought food for them to eat. Knowing if found they along with the deacon could be put to death he had them shed their uniforms and put on sackcloth from burlap sacks they had sewed and made into clothes. But every morning he had them join him in bible study and prayer, as the army tightened its net and set up a cordon around the area. Finally, after many tense days with Che and his men being hidden from the army patrols by the deacon, a message came through to join up with Fidels column. Che had to take his men through a tight cordon set up by the army on the main road, with a man every fifty paces. They searched for a gap when they came across a concrete cross drain pipe under the highway, and one by one they went under the road with soldiers standing a few feet away, to get out of the tighening trap the army had set. So when Che came to the Adventist college in Santa Clara, he remembered the deacon and took care that the people were taken care of and no harm came to them from his men.Simbagraphix (talk) 13:03, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Simbagraphix. This is fascinating. Is there an online source for the info? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 14:15, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
I am getting it straight from a reliable source, and I am hoping he can finish writing it in his memoirs and get it published, but we shall see. What happened was that after Batista had fled, when Che came back to the program at the university, he went up front with his 'barbudos' flanking him and stood before the whole audience and told them the story of the 'little padresito' (little pastor) who had taken care of him and his men. So it dawned on all the Adventist there from the college how they were protected from both any harm from the rebels, and at the same time guarded from the army during the battle..Simbagraphix (talk) 17:59, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Image of Southern Junior College at File:SouthernJuniorCollege-1942.jpg

Hi Don. I located an image of Southern Junior College from the Triangle student magazine of 1942 on archive.org. There is no copyright notice in the magazine. Since it was published between 1923 and 1977 in the US, the publication is now in the public domain in the US. Since I stay away from editing SDA articles, I'll leave it up to you if you think the image is suitable for inclusion in Southern Adventist University. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 10:35, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

And now we actually have a confirmation that user Kolokol1 is being paid to whiten Berezovsky's reputation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Foundation_for_Civil_Liberties as you can see from description, this is a firm funded by Berezovski.

In the link on the bottom of this page you can see, that Kolokol is their "Foundation's news project"

Doesn't it have clear resemblance to Kolokol1's nickname??? Of course it can be a mere coincidence, but it's up to you all to judgeDeepdish7 (talk) 15:17, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Moved from user page. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:38, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Biographies of a living person of necessity must be conservative and careful. Whether a non-independent source is revealed, or not, it is still important to make sure that what is asserted about Berezovsky is verifiable in several third party reliable sources. This makes information more difficult to include, but once the proper sourcing is done, the WP article is much better for it. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 14:12, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Some bubble tea for you!

For so many high quality contributions. I hope you like bubble tea, cause this one's for you! Pinkstrawberry02 (talk) 02:29, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Re:Thanks

You're welcome. =) Pinkstrawberry02 (talk) 02:42, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:War of the Pacific

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:War of the Pacific. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 14:36, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

SDA Template

Don,

If I could have your input on the SDA template, I would greatly appreciate it. ThxSimbagraphix (talk) 22:50, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Here is the link to it..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Seventh-day_Adventism

Hi Simbagraphix,

  • I would like some initial input regarding the form used to request help.

Here is a sample request for help:

Hi:

The Template for Seventh-day Adventism is being examined. The editors doing so, have agreed to seek the counsel of those editors who are either Seventh-day Adventists or who have an interested in Seventh-day Adventist articles.

We have noticed your edits on such articles and would appreciate your input.

Questions to consider:

1. Is the Template acceptable in its current state? See: Here as an example of such.

OR

2. Should the Template be modified and shortened, made more compact? Here is an example of such a compact look?

2a. If the Template is made more compact, what segments should stay, which should be removed.

Templates are important to many readers. We are encouraging a time-involved deliberative approach rather than a quick decision.

If you are able to help, it would be appreciated. Thanks. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 23:11, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Don,

Here is a few changes to consider for the sample request for help, so the editors are not funneled into a Either/Or but just questions to consider.....Simbagraphix (talk) 10:20, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@


Hi:

The Template for Seventh-day Adventism is being examined. The editors doing so, have agreed to seek the counsel of those editors who are either Seventh-day Adventists or who have an interest in Seventh-day Adventist articles.

We have noticed your edits on such articles and would appreciate your input.

Questions to consider:

1. Is the Template acceptable in its current state? See: Here as an example of such.

2. Should the Template be modified to remove any links that are not needed to explain the history of Adventism such as Pietism or take out some of the people in Adventism just leaving the important pioneers? See:[13] Or take out links to the theology such as Premillennialism or the groups related such as Advent Christian Church or Church of God to make it more compact? See: [14] [15]

3. Should the Template be made more compact? Here is an example of such a compact look?


Templates are important to many readers. We are encouraging a time-involved deliberative approach rather than a quick decision.

If you are able to help, it would be appreciated. Thanks. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 23:11, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Please comment on Talk:William Lane Craig

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:William Lane Craig. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 07:23, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

YEC

It's really nice of you to try and help Til, Donald, but, no offence intended, I'm afraid you're in no position to. You're really out of your element here. You simply lack the background information to make sense of anything, even a catechism. For you as a SDA, understanding the way Orthodox Christianity works is going to be as difficult as understanding the way Buddhism works. Thinking of Orthodox churches as just other "faith groups" is an apples-and-oranges mistake. Glad you want to learn more about the topic, though. A good place to start would be "The Orthodox Way" by Bishop Kallistos Ware. He's an Englishman who became an Orthodox bishop, and he does a great job explaining it for the uninitiated. It's the book that's most often recommended to converts from Western Christianity. The Catholic and Orthodox churches have a two-thousand-year-long history of intense theological and intellectual thought. Also, when you're doing your research, stick to reliable academic sources, and don't even try to read primary sources or sources published by the churches for internal consumption by those who already have a firm background. You'll just get yourself confused. As for Til, he's been coming around for years with the same complaints. Every time, he is asked to provide sources, but he never does. I'm not at all convinced that he knows what he's talking about. I'm a cradle ex-Catholic that has studied Orthodox Christianity for years, and what he's saying is simply not consistent with what I've learned. Good luck, and happy editing! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:18, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Dominus, thanks for this note. It is appreciated. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 18:23, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
You're welcome. I've told you before that I'm always here to help you if you need it. Never hesitate to knock at my door.... um, talkpage! Best of luck! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:31, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
One more thing. I never said, or even implied, that Orthodoxy was not significant enough to warrant more than a footnote. I said that its connection to YEC was insignificant. Same thing applies to the Roman Catholic Church, which also gets scant mention in the article. This has nothing to do with cultural discrimination. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:53, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Again, I appreciate your clarification. You are correct that my understanding of Orthodoxy is limited. This brief foray into the differences has yielded significant learning on my part. I have been aware of the Roman Catholic Church's acknowledging common origin evolution as compatable with its teachings. I was not aware of the Eastern Orthodox similar view. Also, I was not aware that Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox are distinctly separate. Til's concern has led me to investigate how Oriental Orthodox Christian view Creation and how they view Western dominance. More later. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 19:00, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:C. S. Lewis

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:C. S. Lewis. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 08:15, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Paul Krugman

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Paul Krugman. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 09:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Pregnancy

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Pregnancy. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 09:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


Your GA nomination of Southern Adventist University

The article Southern Adventist University you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Southern Adventist University for things which need to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Lionel, I have started. Some of the list are easy to fix. Let's work together to meet the seven day deadline and mark 'done' beside the ones fixed. An interesting side note: there are at least to Milton Academys, the fore-runner to Walla Walla is not the one in Massachusetts and highlighted in a WP article. The dead links may be more of a challenge. The history is barely begun, but that seems of little concern. More later... DonaldRichardSands (talk) 11:58, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Looks like this is all that's left: "2. Publisher details, titles and authors are missing from many cites. Consistency should apply". We need to replace <ref>[website] with <ref>{{cite|...}} .– Lionel (talk) 08:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Looks like about 25.– Lionel (talk) 21:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at WP:WikiProject_Conservatism's talk page.– Lionel (talk) 22:10, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jimmy Wales

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Jimmy Wales. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 10:15, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

SAU article, note 39

Hello, Donald. Footnote 39 of the Southern Adventist University article is defective. It's supposed to refer to a book someone named Knight wrote in 2000. If you can tell me the full name of Knight, or the name of his book, I'll track it down and fix the reference. Thanks. --Kenatipo speak! 03:10, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, again. Forget this, Donald. I figured it out. It's George R. Knight's A Search for Identity. Thanks anyway. --Kenatipo speak! 03:36, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Yugoslavs in Croatia

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Yugoslavs in Croatia. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 10:16, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Adventist Template

Don,

Its ready, come check it out and see if any comments...Simbagraphix (talk) 11:13, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Here is the discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Seventh-day_Adventism

Here is the work page for the new template: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Seventh-day_Adventism/workpage

A barnstar for you!

The Good Article Barnstar
Thanks DonaldRichardSands for helping to promote Southern Adventist University to Good Article status. Please accept this little sign of appreciation and goodwill from me, because you deserve it. Keep it up, and give some a pat on the back today. --Sp33dyphil © • © 00:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Conservatism - a concept formation study

From dictionary.com

Adjective

1. disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.
2. cautiously moderate or purposefully low: a conservative estimate.
3. traditional in style or manner; avoiding novelty or showiness: conservative suit.


A google definition:

Adjective: Holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in politics or religion.

Noun: A person who is averse to change and holds to traditional values and attitudes, typically in politics.

Observation: It seems that any philosophy can be conservatively held.

Religious Conservatism

"The New Religious Conservatism

"Perhaps one of the most significant changes in religion in recent years is the rise in religious conservatism. There has been a dramatic increase in the number of people who say they are born again or evangelical...

"The evangelical movement consists of diverse groups, including Faith Assemblies of God, Churches of Christ, and the Jehovah's Witnesses, to name only a few. In the past, conservative religious groups had largely distanced themselves from politics. Beginning in the 1970s, however, conservative activists realized they could have an enormous impact on national politics if they mobilized the growing numbers of conservative Christian groups. Their affiliation with each other and with conservative political causes has resulted in a movement known as the "new Christian right" (Liebman and Wuthnow 1983) - most evident in the presidential election of 2004.

"The conservative Christian movement has fueled antiabortion activism, revived the effort to teach creationism in the schools, and supported so-called pro-family legislation that promotes a variety of conservative values. The Christian right sees the changing role of women in society and the influence of the feminist movement as threatening traditional "family values" and undermining what they see as "natural" arragnements between women and men (Gallagher 2003)."

Sociology: understanding a diverse society Margaret L. Andersen, Howard Francis Taylor , Cengage Learning, 2005 ISBN 978-0-534-61716-5, 9780534617165

Creationism is a perennial American problem for two reasons: low scientific literacy (despite the American love of technology) and a high level of religious conservatism, although the mainstream religions made their peace with evolution long ago and have no objections to its being taught in public schools...


p. 180


Creationism's Trojan horse: the wedge of intelligent design (Google eBook) Barbara Forrest, Paul R. Gross 5 Reviewshttp://books.google.ca/books/about/Creationism_s_Trojan_horse.html?id=aP4RxWZceNkC Oxford University Press, 2004 - Religion - 401 pages



New York, NY

ISBN 0-19-515742-7

http://books.google.ca/books?id=aP4RxWZceNkC&pg=PA180&dq=%22religious+conservatism%22,+creationism&hl=en&ei=HTW_Tv__GMfv0gGT5MGtBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22religious%20conservatism%22%2C%20creationism&f=false



The Blackwell dictionary of modern social thought

William Outhwaite 0 Reviewshttp://books.google.ca/books/about/The_Blackwell_dictionary_of_modern_socia.html?id=N92gOkqu6kAC Wiley-Blackwell, 2006 - History - 856 pages



fundamentalism

Beginning its life with reference to a variety of conservative Protestantism, more particularly in the United States, the term in its contemporary use is loosely extended to include varieties of conservative Islam and conservative Judaism, and ought to include the kind of militant and dogmatic Catholicism found in the Opus Dei movement.


http://books.google.ca/books?id=N92gOkqu6kAC&pg=PA248&dq=%22religious+conservatism%22,+creationism&hl=en&ei=Tzy_TvSnK8Pf0QHpm7GwBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=%22religious%20conservatism%22%2C%20creationism&f=false


http://books.google.ca/books?id=N92gOkqu6kAC&pg=PA248&dq=%22religious+conservatism%22,+creationism&hl=en&ei=wTa_TtCEDcXs0gHXwrjFBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=%22religious%20conservatism%22%2C%20creationism&f=false


http://books.google.ca/books?id=N92gOkqu6kAC&pg=PA248&dq=%22religious+conservatism%22,+creationism&hl=en&ei=wTa_TtCEDcXs0gHXwrjFBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=conservatism&f=true

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English)

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 11:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Tamara Toumanova

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Tamara Toumanova. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 12:15, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, DonaldRichardSands. You have new messages at NatGertler's talk page.
Message added 22:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Nat Gertler (talk) 22:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Katrina Kaif

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Katrina Kaif. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 13:15, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Wintley Phipps

First of all, great work on the Wintley Phipps article. You've really improved it, and I know you're not done yet. My editing intentions for the article are to improve the albums area by removing the remaining redlinks (and if I'm lucky, finding reliable info on the albums and creating articles for them), cleaning up the external links area, integrating the information found in most of them into the article itself in the form of references, while leaving those that directly relate to Phipps himself. Let me know if I am interfering with what you're trying to accomplish, and I'll cease and desist. Otherwise, let me know if there's something I can do to assist you. 78.26 (talk) 16:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Hi 78.26, thanks. Your help is appreciated in all counts. I have spent most of my time collecting sources and putting them on the Wintley Phipps talk page, along with relevant quotes. This is so that anyone who can make use of these sources to further establish the article can readily do so. The more I study about Phipps, the more I appreciate his story. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 16:23, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Ariel A. Roth

  1. Please do not remove maintenance tags without a WP:CONSENSUS that they are not needed. I would note that your views of what is non-trivial appear to be inconsistent with general Wikipedia practice.
  • My views are inconsistent with your views not with general Wikipedia practice. Roth's studies may not be earth shattering but they are not trivial. If it is just you and me, consensus will be impossible. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 17:15, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
  1. Please do not add unrealiable sources for information about a third party. Doing so is in violation of WP:ABOUTSELF.

What are you talking about specifically here? I have not added any WP:ABOUTSELF I'm fairly sure I've raised both issues with you before, and I'm rreally getting rather tired of having to repeat myself. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:20, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Just because you raise the issue doesn't mean you are right. If you are getting tired of having to repeat yourself, that is unfortunate. You are wrong IMO, and thus I will not follow everything you advise. You will have to repeat yourself then, and mayby I will catch on after the second mention or the tenth mention. Don't give up. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 17:15, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors, which you did not on Talk:Ariel A. Roth. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. "Hrafn, you have no basis to doubt this books accuracy except your own bias against a church publisher." HrafnTalkStalk(P) 19:25, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Beatrice Rosen

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Beatrice Rosen. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 16:15, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Moving your questions into the Threaded Discussion on RFC

Hope that's OK? [16] ... talknic (talk) 09:34, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Thx ... talknic (talk) 12:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:H.P. Lovecraft

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:H.P. Lovecraft. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 17:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at Djathinkimacowboy's talk page.

Please comment on Talk:Abd al-Rab Mansur al-Hadi

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Abd al-Rab Mansur al-Hadi. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 18:15, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Charlize Theron

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Charlize Theron. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 19:15, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Please familiarise yourself with WP:SEEALSO and WP:EL which provide guidance as to what links are proper to include in these sections. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:01, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Hrafn, I have no argument with your revert. The Truth in Science link was unnecessary. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 15:16, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

What an article entirely lacking in third party sourcing can look like

If you're interested in gaining an insight into why Wikipedia tends to disapprove of articles that lack third party sourcing, you might wish to take a look at Spiritual Hierarchy, for a rather stark example from well outside your own sphere of interest. It was recently brought up on WP:FTN by another editor. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:31, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

  • I looked it over briefly. It certainly is outside my sphere. On Wikipedia, the area which challenges me to help is the tracking down of those highly informative third party sources, assuming they exist. You have led the way in helping me understand the need for them.

Merry Christmas!

Happy new year
we wish you a merry christmas and a happy new year! Pass a Method talk 20:18, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Harry Morgan

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Harry Morgan. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 20:15, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Origin theories of Christopher Columbus

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Origin theories of Christopher Columbus. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 21:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Flavio Briatore

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Flavio Briatore. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 22:15, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Responsibility to protect, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gareth Evans (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) 10:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 23:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

John Gribbin

Happy New Year, Donald Richard! I just deleted part of the John Gribbin article that you worked on recently. You might want to take a look at it. Thanks, and I appreciate any of your thoughts on the matter. (What the heck is this goofy blackout stuff about?) --Kenatipo speak! 02:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Update: Hrafn revised the section and it is much improved. --Kenatipo speak! 06:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi Kenatipo, I looked over the John Gribbin article and find the changes positive. Thanks for the heads up. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 07:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Luciano Laurana

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Luciano Laurana. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 00:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of unusual deaths

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of unusual deaths. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 01:15, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

DonaldRichardSands/Adventist Recipes

Hi there Donald. You recently created this page in the mainspace, and I moved it to User:DonaldRichardSands/Adventist Recipes since I think its a misplaced user subpage. Cheers, Nolelover Talk·Contribs 15:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Kat Von D

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Kat Von D. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 02:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Thor Heyerdahl

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Thor Heyerdahl. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 03:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Kingdom of God

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Kingdom of God. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 03:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Thor Heyerdahl

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Criticism of Thor Heyerdahl is not neutral or literally a legitimate criticism". Thank you. DixieDear (talk) 01:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Kat Von D

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Kat Von D. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 04:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of nicknames of United States presidents

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of nicknames of United States presidents. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 05:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Deaths of Lawrence and Glenna Shapiro

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Deaths of Lawrence and Glenna Shapiro. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 06:15, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Richard Lynn

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Richard Lynn. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 07:15, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Mike Myers

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Mike Myers. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 08:15, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

RfC input needed

Hi. Input would be appreciated at an RfC regarding Foley Square trial. I randomly selected you from the History section of the RfC feedback request list. Please disregard this request if you are too busy or not interested. --Noleander (talk) 15:13, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Canadian liquor plebiscite, 1920, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Scott Act (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) 18:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Talbot Hobbs

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Talbot Hobbs. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 09:15, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, DonaldRichardSands. You have new messages at JohnChrysostom's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Please comment on Talk:Elizabeth Taylor

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Elizabeth Taylor. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 17:49, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Straight pride

It's great to be working with you again. – Lionel (talk) 02:20, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

  • I was hoping you would say something like that. :) I am kind of out of my depth re: the incidents section. Any help you can provide would be appreciated. Specifically, if an incident is important for the moment but not enduringly, does it have a place being reported in an article? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 03:40, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Read WP:EVENT, WP:STANDALONE and WP:LISTCRUFT. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:37, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for this Dominus. When my day ends, I will study it. I have an editor who has agreed to be like a mentor to me. (As you have as well.) He has agreed to look over the discussions at Straight Pride and provide some counsel, but has asked for a few days to examine the discussions. Let's agree to not make major changes to the article for at least a week or so. Thanks for your help. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 17:45, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Keep in mind WP:Canvass then if you're involving others. Thanks Jenova20 14:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Hi Jenova, thanks for the caution. I am aware of the WP:Canvass. Some of the arguments brought forward need clarification, at least for me. I have asked for his advice. Canvassing has an intention to stack the deck; this is not my intention. Many WP disputes can be resolved by clear thinking. In this case, I am the one needing to explore my own thinking and I am quite convinced that this mentor will help me do so. My concern is the premature reverts. Rather than seeking protection for the article, I have informally asked for major deletions to be avoided at least for a week. Thanks for your patience. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 16:10, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Why am I interested in the Straight Pride article?

Why do you support straight pride? BlackxxJapan (talk) 03:20, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Blackxx, thanks for your question. I think the question should be "Why am I interested in the Straight Pride article?" If a straight pride event took place near where I live, I would go watch, but not be a participant. The same thing is true regarding gay pride. I would observe, but not participate. I live near a major city known for its gay pride parade. The night before is a major informal time along one or two of the major streets of the downtown area, with lots of people. I love being around people and have attended this informal gathering. So, on that level, events are of interest to me. Also, one of the editors working on the straight pride article, and I, have worked on other articles together. This editor's contributions show up on my watchlist. I decided to study the Straight Pride information and do what I can do to help. I think one of my WP skills is finding sources. I found several, some already found by others, and noted the international phenomena. The Yellowknife story is especially interesting to me because of the stages of the story. It began with a gay pride event, the concept of equality came to the surface, the straight pride event was announced. It hit the media all across the nation and caused a big controversy in the wake of the news story. The size of the reaction overwhelmed the man who started the "Straight Pride" event and he withdrew his proposal and apologized to those upset with his idea. I have been involved in many discussions about sexual orientation with those of a conservative faith-based viewpoint and I have several stories to tell which demontrate the complexity of the issues involved. A friend of mine came out while preaching in his conservative congregation. A senior couple, again close friends, conservative in their faith, discovered their daughter was a lesbian. They listened carefully to her story and changed their views on the issues and became supportive of her. A current friend of mine is a retired teacher who is gay. He told me that he has actually rescued students from plans to commit suicide. A minister of a denomination which allows gay clergy is a friend of mine. In the town where we lived, the ministerial association was divided over the issues involved. I see Wikipedia as a window on the world. The Straight Pride reaction to Gay Pride is part of the world. Wikipedia should capture that. How it does so, is part of what we, as editors, discuss. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 12:08, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
I saw a comment of yours saying you wanted to promote it or something, maybe a talk page, so I was curious. Found your profile through some research I was doing on religious figures and had followed your contributions to the Seventh-day Adventist articles and... was basically a bored wiki user and kept following links :) But as a 22 year old gay college student was kind of disappointed that I saw yet another Christian slamming homosexuals (my perception) so I just wanted to comment. And... I guess be a total random wiki-creeper because it was a random thread of wiki-links I followed. BlackxxJapan (talk) 15:47, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I appreciate your concern and am pleased that we have met. My talk page comment was in support of the article not being merged. It was not a comment on whether I personally approve of "Straight Pride" events. I have no interest in "slamming" homosexuals. Some advocates of straight pride are not either, such as the man in Yellowknife. I believe that conservative Christians who are opposed to the homosexual lifestyle need to fully understand the complexity of the issues. I also believe that homosexuals, such as yourself, should understand how impossible it is for fundamentalist, or conservative, Christians to accept homosexuality as a bonafide lifestyle. We need to understand each other and then treat each other decently and with compassion. The person who came out during his sermon remains a friend of mine. The couple whose daughter is a lesbian remain special to me. They have helped me understand the issues further. Straight Pride parades are often controversial, even hateful. I don't agree with that approach to the gay/hetero divide. But, these events happen and it is better to know their nature than not.DonaldRichardSands (talk) 16:01, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
  • As I think further on the question, I realize that I am better acquainted with the issues than I was before I began editing on the article. Finding reliable sources, and useful sources, is far more time consuming and involving than one would think. As sources are examined, learning takes place. As long as I am learning, I usually keep at my studies. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 18:04, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on User talk:Draeco/Dubin

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on User talk:Draeco/Dubin. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 18:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Muammar Gaddafi

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Muammar Gaddafi. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 19:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Mark Kirk

Two things: The discussion you alluded to in your edit summary was about something else entirely; you removed a sourced discussion of person he was engaged to, not merely dating or sleeping with, and the discussion of his stroke. the latter is mind boggling. The illness is an important part of his life story, and as it interferes—at least for a time—with his ability to do the job he was elected to do, it is more than merely voyeuristic to include it. The second point is that whey you do try to remove something on BLP grounds, it is wholly inappropriate to comment it out. Rather, it must be deleted. -Rrius (talk) 00:01, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Good start on LGT article.

I just discovered this article and was looking to fix it up. It is really lopsided. This article and the historic Adventist article and the progressive Adventist articles present the discussion as if there is only Historic or progressive sides, ignoring that they are both minority views to the left and right. Johnjonesjr (talk) 21:39, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Hi John Jones, jr. Yes, what I noticed was the type of citations. The LGT article has very few scholarly, arms length, type of citations. Sometimes it is hard to find such, but Google Books and surprisingly, Adventist Archives, helps balance the record. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 21:46, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Joyce Banda

All those discussions concerning that article, are likely futile. Editor M, has already stated on his talkpage, that he'll wait until everyone leaves that article & then make the changes he prefers. This show me that Editor M has ownershp issues. GoodDay (talk) 01:02, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

  • It seems that way to me, as well. I appreciate your counsel. I feel we are already making some progress. It was the interaction, his way of talking to you, that got my attention. He can be more civil. I never heard of Joyce Banda before and am quite intrigued with her story. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 01:08, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Abdulla Mohamed

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Abdulla Mohamed. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 20:15, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Science lovers wanted!

Science lovers wanted!
Hi! I'm serving as the wikipedian-in-residence at the Smithsonian Institution Archives until June! One of my goals as resident, is to work with Wikipedians and staff to improve content on Wikipedia about people who have collections held in the Archives - most of these are scientists who held roles within the Smithsonian and/or federal government. I thought you might like to participate since you are interested in the sciences! Sign up to participate here and dive into articles needing expansion and creation on our to-do list. Feel free to make a request for images or materials at the request page, and of course, if you share your successes at the outcomes page you will receive the SIA barnstar! Thanks for your interest, and I look forward to your participation! Sarah (talk) 01:55, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

SIA project!

Hey Donald! So happy that you came by the Smithsonian Institution Archives project and signed up to participate! We've got a great list of subjects that need to be improved upon or written about. I do hope you'll visit the to-do list and dive in - do let me know if you need anything. And of course, your contributions can earn you the official oh so fancy SIA barnstar :) Thanks again! So happy to have you on board! SarahStierch (talk) 23:07, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sarah Stierch, here are the related articles that I have attempted to improve:
  1. Robert McCormick Adams, Jr.

Robert McCormick Adams

Request granted: Commons::Category:Robert McCormick Adams :) SarahStierch (talk) 18:48, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sarah, thanks. That's an impressive collection. I will have to see what can be used in the article. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 20:17, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Mike Martinez

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Mike Martinez. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 21:15, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Joyce Banda, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Envoy (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) 10:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Rational Skepticism WikiProject asking for look at Theosophy entry

Since you are an active participant in the Rational Skepticism WikiProject, would you mind looking over the Wikipedia entry on Theosophy to see if you find any concerns? Thanks much,Factseducado (talk) 14:00, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Factseducado, thanks for the invite. I will look it over and report here. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 22:28, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
I have started with reading the beginning of the article and reading the talk page; starting to, at least. Some thoughts:
  • I am impressed with the collaborative discussions at the beginning of the talk page. See Talk:Theosophy#Proposed outline of article.
  • I have begun to read the talk section where Factseducado and the early collaborators on the article discuss Factseducado's concerns. My impression thus far is that we need to clarify more specifically what needs to be changed. I have learned that clear addressing of specific lines or texts in the article helps all. More later... DonaldRichardSands (talk) 23:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Binksternet has now contributed ideas. He or she is very clear and very smart. Any further input you give will be most appreciated. I am brand new.Factseducado (talk) 01:46, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I was quite pleased to see him get involved. I have read some past posts of his. Don't worry too much about being new. Keep at issues that concern you. Be patient with the other editors working on the article. Always be courteous. One interesting approach is to edit to help those who think differently than you do. I believe that the Theosophy article needs to be developed so that it examines the adherent's view and the critic's view. As we study these topics, we learn what the issues are in the scholarly world and in the minds of non-scholars as well. Then, our task as editors is to report what we know with reliable, verifiable sources. In a way, Wikipedia is a debating club. At other times it functions like an editorial committee. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 02:54, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
In your previous experiences have you seen how to "learn what the issues are in the scholarly world and in the minds of non-scholars as well." I wish it were possible to write in the article something like, " Some people believe theosophy is only properly used as a word to refer to x, but scholar y has written [something that contradicts the stated belief]." The trouble I see with that is that unless something is published in reliable, verifiable sources Wikipedia forbids using it. I suppose I'll have to see if any reliable, verifiable source states what the issues are in the minds of non-scholars. I know people's feelings will be hurt if their beliefs, conclusions, and POVs on the topic aren't included. It would help so much if they could back-up their ideas with reliable, verifiable sources and page numbers. I'd really like to compromise frankly, just to keep the peace. However, the Wikipedia requirements are clear.
Of course, if you decide to contribute research and writing to this article that would be fantastic. There is plenty of work to be done. Thanks for helping as you have so far. I appreciate the advice and your contribution to the talk page.Factseducado (talk) 14:16, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Brian Camelio

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Brian Camelio. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 22:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Glycemic efficacy

How are you? If you or you know anybody who can expand this let them know!♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:30, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Archive 1
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DonaldRichardSands/Archive_1&oldid=1051372114"