This is an archive of past discussions with User:Pastordavid. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Theology-Related Conversations

Theology of Glory

How about we merge Theology of Glory and make it a redirect instead of deletion? --EmperorBMA|話す 06:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Can do, I'll merge it and redirect... -- EmperorBMA|話す 06:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Jacobite/Nestorian

That was my intention in taking it to the talk page, but thanks for the heads-up. BTW, are you from Blair NE? I have family in the Decatur area. --Midnite Critic 17:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Trinity

I think it belongs to the lead.

For example,

Encyclopedia Britanica starts the article on Trinity with: "in Christian doctrine, the unity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three persons in one Godhead. Neither the word Trinity nor the explicit doctrine appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord” (Deuteronomy 6:4). "
Oxford Dictionary of the Bible starts with: "The Trinity is not explicitly mentioned in the NT: it was defined as a result of continous exploration of the biblical data."
The Oxford Companian of the Bible starts with : "Trinity. Because the Trinity is such an important part of later Christian doctrine, it is striking that the term does not appear in the New Testament. Likewise, the developed concept of three coequal partners in the Godhead found in later creedal formulations cannot be clearly detected within the confines of the cannon."

As you can see, to all these sources the scriptural source of the doctorine is important. Also, per WP:Lead, the lead should touch the important points. Cheers, --Karbar1 21:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Fivefold ministry

Picked up the removal on recent changes reverted the removed tags. Warned the user. Have it watchlisted.--John Lake 07:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Christianity

Hang on you are a pastor and you deleted my insert!?!? Why would you do that because it doesn't follow wikipedia guidelines? Because I didn't speak from a neutral position, why would you care are you to afraid to stand behind God's word? Frankly, you have the right to post that topic in what way you want. Don't forget what our founding fathers stood for and what thousands of men have died for

Well then i guess you are for taking religion out of schools and government buildings? Because hey it is a rule and we must follow it even though it is complete unconstitutional?

Hey how do you stop the deletion and when the vote happens who votes on it?

John 1:1

Added two more cents - to discuss RFC Blueboar 23:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply

Thank you! And thank you for your input as well, it's been very helpful. It looks like a pretty good consensus is beginning to form on the article, and hopefully the new version will be a lot less biased. While you're correct that no one is "automatically right" on any article (even experts disagree in many cases, after all!), it's always very good to have someone that has a good understanding of the source material and has ready access to it. As to the previous version, quite realistically, I think it was one person just trying to do the best (s)he could-it's very hard, when writing by oneself and not having the writing examined by anyone else, to let personal views and "I think I remember this..." creep in. When someone else is around, they can say "Hey! What's your source for that? And there's an opposing view on this, we need to present that too." It can happen to anyone-even the very best journalists get read by editors, and I'm sure frequently corrected by them. Seraphimblade 05:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Christianity

Popups should only be used to revert obvious vandalism as the edit summary is set for you and therefore can look dismissive or rude. Where you disagree with an edit I'm afraid you have to do it long hand so as to be able to put an informative edit summary. It takes a while to get used to wiki protocol so if you have any questions please ask. Sophia 13:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

No problems. The guy has a bee in his bonnet and any edit war like that can get the article locked by an admin. Hopefully he won't revert me but we shall see. Sophia 13:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Oecumenical?

Hi. I have explained the reasons for the changes here. If u need anything more to be explained, feel free to ask me. Regards Hectorian 02:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. Blame it on Hectorian. He was attempting to call all the Bishops of Byzantium and Archbishops of Constantinope 'Patriarch' too. InfernoXV 21:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Hiho - how would you feel about having all the Ecumenical Patriarch X of Constantinople articles renamed back to Patriarch X of Constantinople? InfernoXV 18:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Eutychianism

I'm helping clear the backlog of articles to be wikified and have come across the above, which I note that you have been trying to improve. I left a message on its talk page that you may find relevant. Regards. Itsmejudith 00:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Could you take a look at History of Christian theology?

Hi, I have put together a new article titled History of Christian theology. I noticed that you reverted some vandalism on Christian theology so presumably you have an interest in this topic. I'm not 100% sure that we need two articles i.e. both Christian theology and History of Christian theology. The Christian theology article does tend to cover the history of Christian theological development already although it is all in bullet points and links rather than prose. I don't suppose it is possible to write an article that is only about contemporary Christian theology without covering the 2000 years of history that led up to it. So, what I'm trying to say is: I'm trying to decide how to provide History of Christian theology a raison-d'etre i.e. how to distinguish its scope from that of Christian theology. To that end, I would like to enlist your help in reviewing the History of Christian theology article and giving me feedback on how to improve it, specifically with regards to differentiating it from Christian theology article. And, it's OK if your conclusion is that there isn't a need for both articles and that the two articles should be merged. I m;yself am sitting on the fence with respect to such a course of action. Much thanks in advance for your help... --Richard 20:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I have replied on the article talk page. -- Pastordavid 21:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Feedback request: "Christian Church"

PastorDavid, Nswinton nominated you as a good person to get feedback from. I hope you don't mind my pestering you. I was hoping you might be able to give input on the newly revised Christian Church article (still a work in progress). Some specific questions.

Is the current scope of the article appropriate (i.e. should it be broader, narrower, etc.)?
Does the organization of the article support the topic well?
Have I kept the descriptions neutral enough? I have tried really hard to make the article fair and accessible to all Christian sects as well as non-Christians.
If you have not seen I recently merged the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church into the Christian Church article. At least one editor has objected strenuously to this. I *believe* the objection is largely on the grounds that the CC article should be much broader than it is now and the OHCAC article should be very specific (honestly I still don't understand the argument fully). You can see the discussion on the Talk page. Any thoughts on this subject?

Thanks.

--Mcorazao 16:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Coming off the holy day, and heading into tomorrow's holiday, it may take to mid-week, maybe even the end of the week before I can give it a good once over; but, yes - I'd be glad to. Pastordavid 17:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Understood. Thanks. --Mcorazao 02:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I have responded to your request for feedback on the article's talk page. Pastordavid 15:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for all the feedback! Regarding the debate about the OHCAC article and the Christian Church article this seems to be a contentious issue (i.e. since before you got into the discussion). I had mentioned this to Nswinton and suggested attempting to settle it with a straw poll on the Wikipedia project page basically presenting two differing proposals of the following form:

There has been some recent disagreement regarding the articles "Christian Church" and "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church". We would like to conduct an informal straw poll to gauge opinion on two proposals.

Proposal 1:

Christianity - A survey of the Christian religion in general including discussions of the universal institution of the Church, specific denominations, and the theology and history in general.
Christian Church - A specific discussion of the Church as a universal institution consisting of all Christians (or all "true" Christians depending on ones perspective). This covers the theological and political concept of the institution (including directly related concepts) and a brief history of the institution (as opposed to the wider history of the religion and Christendom).
One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church - A redirect to Christian Church. Since this phrase is really just a way of describing the true Christian Church it does not need to be an article unto itself.
If need be, a separate article discussing the "four marks of the Christian Church", covered in more detail in the original One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church article than the Christian Church article, can be created. This would be a relatively short article focused only on the collective concept of the four marks (the details of each separately are well covered in other articles).

Proposal 2:

Insert your proposal here

Would you care to suggest a Proposal 2 (perhaps this is just keeping the OHCAC the way it used to be but I'd like somebody with the opposing viewpoint to offer a justification)?

Thanks.

--Mcorazao 19:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion and assistance requested on Persecution of early Christians by the Jews

Hi David,

I'm interested in your opinion regarding this "new" article which was created by extracting text from the Persecution of Christians article. Please read both the article and the discussion on the Talk Page.

First, the article as it stands now is canted in favor of those who would minimize or altogether dismiss the NT accounts of persecution of Christians by the Jews. It strikes me that this is a minority opinion among Christians although it may be a more consensus opinion among liberal theologians. How then to re-balance the article? The "fact" that early Christians were persecuted by the Jews is so widely accepted in Christian theology that I don't know how to find sources that state this explicitly. Can you help?

Second, there are editors who insist that the Bible is not itself a reliable source. This stance extends even to assertions as to what it says. Thus, the text that says "According to the NT, Christians were peresecuted by the Jews" is being challenged for lack of sourcing. In fact, text that asserted that Jesus predicted Christians would be persecuted by Jews was just recently deleted.

I understand that it is problematic to use the Bible as a source of historical fact. Moreover, it is difficult to use the Bible as a source even for what the Bible itself says since "what the Bible says" is open to interpretation. For example, do the Bible passages in question really mean that Jesus predicted the Christians would be persecuted by the Jews? Seems obvious to me but apparently not so obvious to some other editors.

The problem is that I have found no sources on the Web that make this assertion although many assume it to be true. Can you help in this regard?

Thanks.

--Richard 19:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Richard, without going to my library and sifting through sources, the first thing that comes to mind is The Community of the Beloved Disciple and The Anchor Bible Commentary (Gospel of John), both by noted Johannine scholar Raymond E. Brown - I distinctly remember Brown talking about precisely this topic when dealing with the Johannine community's attitudes toward Judaism and the synagogue. Beyond that ... well it will take probably through the weekend before I can give you a more thorough reply, but I will certainly see what I can find. Pastordavid 23:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

NBeale

747 Argument

Hi Pastordavid. Re your 747 vote, you might want to know that I am a strong theist (and run John Polkinghorne's web presence) and the reason I think the 747 Gambit should be kept is that it is a very bad argument which has been rightly criticised by notable commentators, even some sympatheic to Dawkins. The people who want it deleted are Dawkins supporters who want to shield their Guru from criticism. If that encourages you to change your vote I'd be very grateful, though of course it's your decision. NBeale 00:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words and for pointing out to NBeale that editors should not be coerced into changing their votes. Unfortunately he has taken this AfD personally and I think that is why he has lost some perspective - probably due to the conflict of interest that you pointed out. Hopefully he will reexamine his edits in the light of your advice. Sophia 07:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Pastor David, your neutrality on the AfD, kindness towards people who don't share your views, and the example that you set for other religious editors, are in effect far greater living arguments against Dawkins than all the attempts to use Wikipedia as a platform to attack and refute the book. I'm impressed by your behaviour, and thank you for caring about the quality of the encyclopaedia. --Merzul 16:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

dispute

Comment removed for the time being (thanks for understanding)

Sophia 22:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to let you know that I did make an offer to the editor involved. However, I would like to not have others commenting on it/talking about it until he has had a chance to see it and respond. Thanks. -- Pastordavid 23:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

No problems - I'm happy to go with anything that works. Thanks fo your help. Sophia 06:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Could you also give your immediate feedback on the article itself. In general, even with the criticism toned down I don't like the article. It doesn't read like a biography, I don't know what is wrong exactly, perhaps the book review stuff should be incorporated into a more coherent overview of his positions. In any case, your comments would be very welcome, as that article is now at the centre of the dispute, and since it is a living person's biography something needs to be decided about it, and then we can talk about any other issues. --Merzul 12:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the article needs some work. However, because of my involvement with NBeale, I don't know that my commenting directly on the article would be the best idea right now. Might I suggest posting a note a either WikiProject Biography and WikiProject Science, and seeing if that brings in some good editors to comment. If that does not work, list the article in a Request for Comment. -- Pastordavid 15:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the advice. I'm also new to Wikipedia, and while I'm aggressively throwing policy at NBeale, I don't assume everything that I have said is right, I sure believe in it myself, but I think NBeale has reason to believe he is right, so please don't be afraid of telling me when I'm going too far. I will post on these Wikiprojects and then unwatch the Orr page, and now that you are working with him I will try to step out of his way as much as I can. --Merzul 17:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Eeh... Thanks for putting it so mildly. I have been questioning his motives and been quite generally unkind. However, most of the time, I like NBeale, he has a good sense of humour, and when he is talking about content, he is very helpful, like here. Of course, he couldn't resist adding a clever aside about Dawkins, but that's fine, we can have our little arguments and jokes on the talk page as long as this doesn't spill over into the articles. Anyway, I'm taking a short wikibreak now, when I come back I will apologize to him. Thank you for helping us. --Merzul 18:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Nicholas Beale

I'm trying to stay out of things because my edits will not seem neutral. As for editing their own article - my understanding of WP:COI is that it is pretty much a no-no and if some articles have suffered from this they are the exception and this practise is not to be encouraged. The article comes across as self promotional with no easy to check third party sources that establish notability (one link is broken). I'm also sure the article was created by a friend of some sort as this was its 4th edit - the account has the hallmark of a sleeper account and I would go as far as suspecting sock or meat puppetry which is why I added the COI tag. By tagging the article I was hoping to bring other neutral editors in but if necessary I will tag it for AfD and have the discussion there. You can obviously see why I am hanging back on that course and and am hoping the tag will do the trick and flush out decent references and a more balanced tone. Sophia 17:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, PD - May I add a few comments, as one who has also crossed ~~swords~~ (!) paths with NBeale from time to time? I understand that you are engaging with him in some kind of mentoring process. I am seriously concerned about the way he uses Wikipedia, and it is nothing whatever to do with whether I agree or disagree with his views on various subjects. It is also nothing to do with any sense of hurt I may feel at some of the unwarranted things he has said about me - I really don't care about that - but I do care about Wikipedia, and that is why I am making these comments. Maybe this is something he and/or you could think about in your discussions. This is meant as constructive comment - and apologies in advance if some of it sounds a bit strong! NBeale is a very energetic and constructive editor, but at the same time I often detect signs of someone who either fails to grasp what Wikipedia is all about, or who is quite cleverly subverting it for his own ends. I think he sees WP as a kind of extension to his blog, to be used to promote his world view and (most recently) to promote himself. He denies it or sidesteps the accusation constantly, but I see a lot of his contributions as very determined POV-pushing. The technique he uses is actually (if I may be excused a cynical interpretation) quite clever. It is to create masses of text and embedded references as quickly as possible, to achieve a "well-referenced article" and the illusion of notability before anyone has the chance to object, and then, when they do so object, to carry on piling on the references as a defence against deletion, and simultaneously to accuse critics of censorship, without ever engaging in any discussion about the actual merits of the article or the shape it should take. An added twist is the bootstrap technique. Create another article, link both ways to and from it, and use this as further proof of "notability". All of these techniques have been used in relation to the Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit, H. Allen Orr, Nicholas Beale - and now also Militant atheism, which is currently in the let's-see-how-much-well-referenced-cruft-we-can-accumulate-before-anyone-notices-there's-nothing-at-the-heart-of-it phase of development! Snalwibma 09:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi PD. I wonder how best to handle [this situation]? (BTW The fuss over Orr has died down and the Militant atheism article has been renamed (without debate) as Antitheism but still has pretty much all the material. And Nicholas Beale was independently reviewed as Start Class so it can't be all bad.) NBeale 20:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

NBeale and friends

It's becoming a bit of a pattern that whenever NBeale is unhappy with the way things are going "friends" appear as if by magic. [1] I know these are small matters in the scheme of things but I feel the integrity of Wikipedia as a whole will be undermined if we give in to creating articles based on how many friend you can muster. The fact that they are now putting up a show of being disinterested parties makes the deceit even worse in my view. We have all spoken to him about this but obviously it is falling on deaf ears. What do you think is an appropriate response to this current attempt to hijack procedure under the guise of allowing proper procedure to take place? Sophia 20:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Concensus is that it should be relisted at AfD. The latest "new" editor is also pushing for notable which is why I've followed this up. No AfD will reasonably reflect the notability of the subject if he has rallied the troops. Sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry are considered the same on Wikipedia as they have the same effect of skewing debates. Thanks for the advice - I will leave it be now and see what happens. I don't know whether NBeale is notable or not (his attachment to his article makes me suspect not) but any AfD must be fairly run. Sophia 06:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I've made my comment at the AfD and will leave it at that. If others can establish notability then great but at the moment it looks unlikely. Sophia 21:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi PD. I think that the user who independently rated the N.B. article start class should be notified as a courtesy that it is up for deletion. (I'm curious to know whether there is any precedent for a start-rated article being deleted, since as far as I can see this places it in the top 25% of rated bio-articles.) However I'm concerned that if I notify him/her people might think it CoI. (PS I'm not responding to Sophia though of course I don't think her comments fair) NBeale 22:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Misc Comments

Blair, Nebraska

Howdy. Consider visiting your edits here. When you add interesting trivia/claims, such as the stop sign, it is best that you cite them in some manner. I have left a citation request. Also, take care to avoid creating redlinks with brackets in your edits, particularly in user talk messages. Kukini 18:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

No problemo. Keep up the good work! - Kukini 20:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

A True Church

I was the one who restored A True Church. I did this because it was mentioned in the articles on Franklin Graham and polygamy and thought that it would be bad to have something mentioned in those articles that doesn't have an article itself. However, it's reference has now been removed from the Franklin Graham article. I'm thinking about deleting it and removing all references to it on Wikipedia. However, we need to do both of these things and not just one, if it is actually a non-notable group. Academic Challenger 07:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Evangelical Church of the Deaf

It looks like our common friend Adam decided without us and nominated the article for deletion... :-) --Ioannes Pragensis 22:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Now it seems that he slowly starts to understand how much he knows about religion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emmanuel Church. I hope that he will be more careful in the future. Merry Christmas! --Ioannes Pragensis 13:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Parkin-Wesley College stub

Why remove {{Christianity-stub}} from Parkin-Wesley College without replacing it with a related more defined Christianity stub? Paul foord 23:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Outside the US a seminary may not necessarily issue Masters degrees. Also Theological College is typical Australian usage for Seminary. Paul foord 04:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The Mind of Mannie Fresh

it was a review copied entirely from another source that I was removing. I'm still lost as how to sign up. -&

Thanks for your RfC participation

Pastordavid, belated thanks for your participation in the Steven Hassan RfC. It helped us come to a good compromise. Tanaats 04:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

A question about 3RR

Pastordavid, I would appreciate some advice about 3RR. 3RR doesn't control how many insertions one makes into an article, just how many times one deletes the insertions of another. So it would be easily possible for someone to go on a bit of a rampage inserting lots and lots of bad edits into an article, while the other editors would each be limited to only being able to reverse three of those edits per day.

The cards seemed stacked in favor of those who would make bad edits.

What does an editor do if faced by a "bad edit rampage" and he's pushing 3RR? Thanks. Tanaats 06:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

A True Church

Pastor David, you wrote: "Please do not delete tags from articles that you have created." Is this a rule? No one else was deleting the tags, even after I had added the external sources. What was I supposed to do? --qrc 16:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

A Bustle in the Hedgerow in Swarthmore

Dearest Pastor David,

Would it be acceptible to incorporatate another heading listed 'Swarthmore Businesses', under which Renato's, as well as other local institutions, could fall? And if not, what would be the acceptable heading under which a venerable establishment, such as Renato's, (for which anyone who has spent their formative years in Swarthmore, holds a certain significance) would fall.

I anxiously await your ruling. Cordially, Murraydeluxxxe

Regarding external Links

Dear Pastordavid, I can understand why you removed the link trinities.org/blog from "Christology" and "Heresy". However, it is a huge mistake to remove it from "Trinity". trinities.org - isn't your normal news and diversions sort of blog, but rather an ongoing resource, with unique & permanent scholarly content, namely, recent work on the Trinity by Christian philosophers. It's far more informative, say, than http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/beliefs/trinity.htm You really should look more closely before you undo someone's work in putting up a link. Would you restore it, please? Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.238.33.58‎ (talk)

Kokkadichcholai_massacre

Both sides have now posted their opinion. Thanks RaveenS 18:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Please responsd when you have time. Thanks [2]RaveenS 20:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks RaveenS 21:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Virek

I would like to defend (mildly, at least) my use of the word "ignoranti" in my comment to Virek. Like its English cognate, it simply means "ones who are unschooled or unaware". Consequently, I feel the word is apt. Virek knows nothing of sailing or boat-building, but, rather than helping produce a better article by finding references or writing something himself, he rampages about, proposing others' work for deletion. In my opinion, he is unqualified to make such judgments. In an environment where every three-chord garage band, tattoo parlor, and Japanese manga character gets its own page, surely one of the dozen or so most influential boat-designers of modern times ought to have an article in Wiki. (For what it's worth, Knud Olsen's OK dinghy design has generated more than 14,000 hand-built copies. It's like the Model T of small race-capable sailing craft.) Virek knows nothing of this, of course; he just knows his little rulebook. -you

Far more offensive than his calling me a "douche-bag" was this from Virek: "I guess you're use to preaching BS judging from your heavy roman catholic edits." This is pure hateful venom directed at me because of my faith. I wouldn't trust the judgment of such a small-minded person on much of anything. He hates sailing; and he hates Catholics. Who cares? Certainly not me. PeterHuntington 10:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

"Virek, comments like "implementing them in a non-douche bag-like fashion" are considered to be personal attacks. Please assume good faith, and comment on content not contributors."

If you want to count personal attacks, you have more than doubled mine. You have made two entire posts on commenting on the contributor, and not the content. I was humoring you, which further fuels your hypocrisy, appearently. The way you write your posts nullify any comments you try to make. Try opening up your own mind. Don't waste my time replying. Good day.Virek 21:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Ralph Nader

I don't even care about the article, I was just patrolling recent changes and it happened to come up twice. The first time, I reverted and then noticed I had missed a previous vandalism, which I then fixed. It came up again later from RC. I don't watch the article, and I really don't care what's on the page, I'm just trying to help out. Thanks for your concern Adam McCormick 16:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Ralph Nader

Greetings Pastordavid! Well, you will see by my comments that I felt we'd achieved a wonderful compromise. But, no, Griot is at it again! S/he's reinserted the quote. Please assist. I don't want to war anymore... 76.166.123.129 02:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

S/He's at it again, Pastordavid... see my reply at Talk:Ralph Nader. Should we request mediation from an admin at this point? 76.166.123.129 09:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

You two don't object to the Atlantic Monthly as a reliable source for articles. But you object to the Atlantic Monthly's reasons for putting Nader on its List of Influential Americans. You can't have one without the other. Please don't bury the Atlantic's reason in a footnote. There are not footnotes in Wikipeida. Articles have reference sections where sources for material are cited, not footnotes. (BTW, please encourage user 76.166 to register.) Griot 14:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

David--About the discussion at the Ralph Nader article, I just want you to be aware that a number of the editors who have been posting there came very recently to Wikipedia: Telogen (March 8, 2007) 72.166.123.129 (March 2, 2007), Peter Huntington (February 23, 2007), the Nervous Mermaid (March 5, 2007). Does this strike you as odd? I feel like I'm debating a puppet show. Thanks for your attempts at compromising in this article. Griot 15:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Does the amount of time one has been contributing to Wikipedia really have a bearing on the cogency of one's analysis or the value of one's opinion? Isn't there a Wiki policy about "newbies" being judged on their merits rather than their length of service? Perhaps if I'd been around this environment longer, I would know that, when your argument fails to sway others, you must run to the arbiter to disparage those who disagree with you. Perhaps I'd also know that the best way to carry the day is to constantly hammer at an unpersuasive line of reasoning until everyone else just gives up in disgust. (By the way, whose "puppet" am I? I consider this to be another uncivil remark that debases the tone of the discussion. It tempts me to speak my mind about the author, but I will refrain.) PeterHuntington 00:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Not if they only comment on the same articles. The Nervous Mermaid is wholly interested in Ralph Nader and has not commented on any other article in Wikipedia except for Seasons & a Muse, Inc, an article that has had only two contributors, one of whom, not coincidentally, is 76.166.123.129, who is often a commentator on the Ralph Nader article. Meanwhile, there's Telogen, who only comments on Ralph Nader and one other article, Jeanne Marie Spicuzza, an article which also happens to be visited often by user 76.166.123.129 very, very often. Sorry Peter Huntington if I wrongly included you with this sewing circle, but geez, let's not be naive. Something's going on. Griot 02:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that the only "something" that is going on here is: the four or five of us all happen to see this one issue the same way. No conspiracy. No connivance. No midnight meetings in out-of-the-way places. We all, independently (and for slightly varying reasons), think you are misguided on this and more than a little bull-headed about accepting the consensus. You know, I only came to this argument because there was a solicitation to arbitrate a dispute. I had an altruistic motive. It's an impulse I now regret. There has been so much immaturity and silliness in this dispute. I beg you, Griot, to move on. Find another dragon to slay. PeterHuntington 02:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you're right. But concesus hasn't bee made here. There's a principle at stake, which is whether or not individuals can hijack Wiki articles. It's clear to me that four of these five individuals are the same person. Griot 15:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

"It's clear to me that four of these five individuals are the same person." Why, because we don't agree with you? "Hijack"? Oh, you mean contributing viable, sourced NPOV different from your POV? Resorting to insults on User talk pages? Please cease this. 76.166.123.129 17:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Couple of Biblical quesions

First let me piont out that I am not going to talk "religion". Have nothing for or against, but I am not a "religious" person and want to keep the conversation "neutral" anyway. Also will try not to talk of other "theories" as many are scared of (as you may already have noticed). Just want to ask a couple of simple straight forward questions. If you don't care to answer, that is quite alright.

Have I every e-mailed you in the past. Don't have to mention what it was about; just a "yes" or "no" will do.
How many Chapters in Acts of the Apostles?
What is the name of the main person in Chapter 10?
What is his occupation or "line of work" or what he is known for?
What country is he associated with?
How many books all total for the New Testament and Old Testament as in the normal Christian bible you have on your desk now?

If you care not to answer these questions, that is alright. I will understand. I'll check later back here. --Doug ^talk 23:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Knights Templar

Thank you for your comments at the FA nom. :) I was wanting to check with you on something, if you don't mind. I understand what you're saying about condensing one of the sections. However, in the recent peer review, the comments were generally that the article was too short, and needed to be expanded. So, I'm feeling a bit stuck, with one group wanting the article longer, and another group wanting the article shorter. ;)

In terms of the History of the Knights Templar article, you are correct that it's unusually short right now. This is because most of our effort has gone into getting the central Knights Templar article polished up first, and then we were going to turn our attention to expanding related articles (as listed at {{Knights Templar}}), some of which might be Featurable in their own right. So yes, the plan to expand the History article considerably, but it's definitely not there yet.

I'm not quite sure of the best way to proceed, in order to please as many people as possible at this point. One possibility is that we could simply merge the History article into the main article for now, but there are some expanded details on the History page which really wouldn't be appropriate to merge into the main article, and I'd hate to delete them entirely. Or, we could simply get rid of the "{{main}}" link at the top of the History section, would that address concerns? Or perhaps change it to a {{see also}}? I'm open to suggestions. :) --El on ka 18:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand the frustration with the review process -- feeling like people are asking for mutually contradictory changes. I am aware that the desire for concise prose is not something that everyone in the community shares with me -- in fact, I think we often reward articles that are bloated with unnecessarily verbose language. But ... that's my own take on it.

As far as suggestions, I would like to see that section trimmed - perhaps by 500-1,000 words. I would leave the "main article" template, even if it isn't trimmed. Recognizing that concensus is needed for FA, and since I haven't voted, how about I head over there and vote as "neutral" and you can handle that section in the way you (and the rest of the editors on the page) best see fit?

Let me say, in addition, that I do think it is a very well-done article and you and those who have worked on it should be proud. There is great summary prose in the other sections, and it is a well-illustrated and informative article. -- Pastordavid 17:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Great work ... my word count put the section at just over 2,000 now, a definite improvement. I have changed my vote to support, a very fine article; well done. -- Pastordavid 07:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Qxz

Thanks! Yes, I did want to know. So perhaps you can help me since you keep an eye on his talk page. Do you know of the log pages I talked about in one of my questions? - Mgm|^(talk) 09:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

That was exactly the page I meant. Thanks for saving me a lot of headaches. Finding a deleted page is possible for admins (and I am one), but it gets a lot harder if you don't know what title to look for. You've just saved me a lot of searching. I'll try to contact Qxz about it if his email is still active. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Denominations from Category Lutheran denominations

Why are you systematically removing cross-references of Lutheran denominations from this category?Ep9206 18:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. What would happen to denominations that belong to both ILC and LWF? or to denominations that do not belong to any global church bodies? I am not convinced that this attempt to streamline categories, that are more descriptive or specific, actually works. In other words, this dichotomy of sub-cat's and parent categories may not actually work. I am in favor of "redundant" categorization if it is not a repetition.Ep9206 20:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Categorization

If we ever get the list of articles done (I am getting to it, just to let you know), and even if we don't, removing redundant categorization is always approved of. Personally, I think adding them whenever possible to the Federation category makes sense, as that is a specific subcategory. Then maybe making that category a subcategory of Denominations, if there are articles relating to Lutheran denominations which aren't part of the Federation. If there are no "independent" denominations, then I think the denominations category would be emptied and I think deletion would be almost automatic. Good idea. John Carter 23:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Template

Hi Pastordavid. You added the Lutheranism template to several members of the Swedish Royal Family, among other. I live in Sweden but have never heard that the Swedish Royal Family would be notable Lutherans in any way. They were baptized and confirmed, as tradition bids, and they attend masses at Christian holidays and wed in Churches, as traditions bids, but I don't see why they are notable Lutherans for that. Do you have further information about them being Lutheran devoted? Or do you think it should be sufficient to live in a Christian country and follow Christian traditions to be included in the WikiProject on Lutheranism? I'd appreciate your thoughts on this. Best, Fred-Chess 16:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Historic church (ID)

I created an article on Cordelia Lutheran Church which is the oldest Lutheran structure in Idaho. I did not add WikiProject Lutheranism as this is no longer an active church. We do use it for Easter sunrise, picnics, etc. I will be adding photos as I have time to drive out and photograph the building. Just FYI in case it fits the project. --Robbie Giles 02:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Doright

No, I don't intend to push it. Fights around here are not worth it. I was under the impression from reading the polices that users were not supposed to blank their pages. This user has a history of harrassing folk, so I thought I'd try to press test the policy. It's a pity to see that history erased, in case he resumes his unpleasant activity. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 21:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Collaborations

David, I think I'd go for a section of an article that is close to GA status. That should take the least effort to bring to a new level and give the air of success. How about Justification (Theology)? --CTSWyneken^(talk) 00:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

CSD G12 tags on OrthodoxWiki copies

Per some discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy, I've reverted all these speedy tags. I used rollback, because there were a lot of them; please don't take offense. It seems we need to evaluate these specific articles on a case-by-case basis. I propose we coordinate efforts through the WikiProject talk page. Thanks. Mango juice^talk 01:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Apologies

Hey no Sweat Pastor Dave God Bless! PS so you want to work with me on somethin'? Hey I would love to have a Oxford group set of profiles up. You know like Marcus Plested, Andrew Louth (he's a very cool guy!) and of course Kallistos Ware. I can biblo the profiles. Or did you have something you wanted? LoveMonkey 16:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

User subpage concerns

That's an awful lot of subpages, to be sure! Maybe contact him, and give him a quick reminder that userspace isn't a free webhost, and suggest that he move the subpages unrelated to encyclopedic content or plans for it to his own machine, or a free webhost, and then {{db-userreq}} them? I don't have any trouble with article sandboxes or any others related to encyclopedia content, even with a lot of them (I've probably got a good one to two dozen subpages myself at any given time in my userspace), but they should be related to the project, not just random stuff. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Lutheranism and Ctobola

I have posted a response to your message on my talk page. Thank you for your help in this matter.--Drboisclair 16:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the help! It's good to have defenders! I've been called far worse, by the way, on Wikipedia. I just make my point and drop it. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 19:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

David, WikiProject Lutheranism is looking to design a project/topic-related barnstar. Unfortunately, such an endevour is beyond the skills of our editors, so we are looking for a little help. I saw that you were involved in designing another barnstar, and thought that you might be able to help us out. Is this something that you would be willing / able to help out with? Thanks for your consideration. -- Pastor David ^† _(Review) 18:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'd be happy to provide whatever assistance I can. :-) —David Levy 19:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

(duplicate post)Thank you for your quick reply. I would like to, if we can, present a couple of possibilities to the Project for them to decide between. For the first, if it could be some image of Luther's seal placed in the middle of a standard barnstar (images at Image:Lutherrose.jpg, Image:Luthseal.gif, and in the commons at Lutherrose_(small).png -- I think the commons image might be easiest to work with, but you would know better). I think the other good option might be Image:Indulgence.png (also from commons) somehow combined with a standard barnstar. I am certainly open to other options as well, especially since you already have experience in this area and probably have some better ideas. Let me know what you think. Pastor David ^† _(Review) 21:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've assembled two barnstar candidates:

Feel free to request any desired revisions or alternative implementations. In particular, it would be very easy to change the actual star's color in candidate 1. —David Levy 04:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow, those both look great. I have asked the WikiProject which they would rather adopt, and expect to hear something in a couple of days. I cannot thank you enough for your help. Pastor David ^† _(Review) 18:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome! If I can be of any further assistance, don't hesitate to ask. :-) —David Levy 20:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Edits

Hi could you tell me how I can figure out how much edits I have without counting them? Runewiki777 20:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Help with Til Eulenspiegel?

Hi! Forgive the intrusion, but if you have time would you mind stopping by this thread on Jimbo Wales's talk page? The fellow has the notion that this is a hostile environment for people of faith. I think it's a topic around which there's inevitably some friction, but I think he has taken this more personally than necessary. Some participation from others who are obviously serious about their faith might advance the discussion from its current unfortunate state. Thanks, William Pietri 18:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

(cross posted from Til Eulenspiegel)Regarding Noah's Ark & Jimbo's talk page. I have not followed the debates you have been involved in about Noah's Ark, an outside editor invited me to have a look at the discussion thread on Jimbo's talk page.

Let me say that some of the comments directed at you may have been a little out of line. However, the correct response to that is not to lash out publicly for the slight against you/your church. More effective would have been a calm, private note to the user involved, asking him/her to tone down his/her rhetoric. Even more effective, it is sometimes best to just ignore such personal slights, and carry on with working on the encyclopedia. As to the general attitude toward religion on wikipedia -- I have never found this to be a place where I have been discriminated against for my faith, or found open hostility (except in cases that represent the minority) toward religion. What is requested is that facts about religion be presented in a neutral tone, based on verifiable information from reliable sources. How I describe a given fact about religion/faith on Sunday morning is very different than how I describe it in this community. Simply put, the standards here are specific and set -- and I agree to abide by those standards when I edit. The standards here more closely represent how religion is described in academic settings, rather than how it is described in religious settings -- and that can be a big adjustment for people who haven't studied religion in an academic setting.

Please calm down, and consider whether or not your current actions are producing the desired results. If they are not, perhaps it is time to try a different approach -- an approach that is a little calmer and a little less accusatory. If you would like to talk about this current situation, please feel free to leave me a note any time. -- Pastor David ^† _(Review) 19:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind assistance. That didn't go as well as I had hoped, and I hope you don't take it personally, as I thought your comment was helpful, clearly written, and obviously well-meant. Regards, William Pietri 23:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I just wanted to thank you for trying as well. It's clear to me that there's some hard feelings in this situation, and I'm afraid that the user may be rubbed a little too raw as it is, but I do think you gave it a good try. Unfortunately, things may have progressed to a very difficult impasse. I hope things work out though. FrozenPurpleCube 02:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Please allow me to apologize if I was hurtful when you were trying to help, yes I admit I was 'rubbed a little raw' and should never have snapped and bit your head off when I really know nothing about you. I feel terrible for doing that now, my temper was way shorter than usual. Regards, Til Eulenspiegel 19:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

(cross posted)Thank you very much for your message. I do understand that "rubbed raw" feeling, and I did not at all take your comments personally. I very much appreciate your integrity and civility in your comment on my talk page, and most whole-heartedly accept your apology. I hope that our paths will cross under better circumstances next time, and perhaps we will find ourselves working together on an article or project. Warmest regards, Pastor David ^† _(Review) 21:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

3RR on Lonnie Frisbee article

Hi, I was just in process of figuring out how to report 3rr, my follow up reverses also tried to adjust to allow that npov wasn't cutting it but this wasn't getting anywhere rv rv rv. No dialog, I would try to appease but nothing. I also left a message for him on his talk page suggesting the article's talk page was better suited and pointed out that he was rv away a ref link as well, etc. In the course of all this I noticed he was removing the LGBT category tag and in similiar edit war mode on other articles, I suggest that editor might need attention.

By the way, how can I seek protection for an artcile being targeted?

You and User:Burntapple both have 4 reverts on Lonnie Frisbee in the last twenty four hours. See the following diffs four your reverts:

   * First: diff
   * Second:diff
   * Third: diff
   * Fourth: diff

Please consider this a warning. I have no interest in getting involved in this content dispute, but will report both of you to WP:AN/3RR if you don't both knock it off. There are better ways to solve content disputes - talk it out, and invite other editors to offer their opinions (you may try asking for a third opinion, editor assistance, or make a request for comment). Also, please note that "rvv" as an edit summary means "reverting vandalism" - a content dispute is not the same as vandalism. Thanks for your consideration. Pastor David † 19:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for you help. I doubt we'll see a big change in certain activities but at least there is better documentation for when it happens again.

3rr

thanks for the heads up. Burntapple 20:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Lonnie Frisbee article

Greetings again, referencing the 3RR drama's noted above with the Lonnie Frisbee article I would like a response or go ahead to make the edits I suggest as follows...

"I appreciate the work and effort. I do have some areas that I feel should be addressed. Do we have reference that he did preach against homosexuality? If not I think that should be removed. Also the statement he forgave those who maligned him was in regards to the two pastors and other church folks but with the revision seems like he just forgave whomever. I think it also should be stated upfront that he was both gay and closeted, part of what makes him a compelling and controversial figure in the growth of both churches and the main reason he was expunged from that history and his work ceased despite his obvious talents."

p.s. editor Burntapple seems to have deleted themselvesBenjiboi 02:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Your sig

It has never bothered me and you know my religious views well!. I do think you were wise to remove it though as some people get so distracted and picky about these things it can cause real disruption. Last summer I had quite a long signiature with links to a couple of pages and then certain users decided this was not on as it put too many characters at the bottom of your comment. There were all sorts of fights and blocks which I thought were unnecessary and when they noticed my sig I just shortened it to save any bother. I'll take this opportunity to get an early congrats in for the RfA as it looks like many others hold you in the same high regard that I do. Sophia 08:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Move core topics list

Hi. Could you move your page User:Pastordavid/WikiProject workpage to Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Core topics work group/Topic list? Thanks!

-- TimNelson 06:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. Pastordavid 08:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The Barnstar of Indulgence

Since you already have a "Barnstar barnstar", it is my great pleasure to award you the first ever Barnstar of Indulgence in recognition of your above and beyond helpfulness in designing a barnstar for WikiProject Lutheranism. Pastordavid 17:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! I'm honored by this kind gesture.

David, having had a straw poll up on the talk page for over a week, the consensus seems to have settled on Image:WikiProject Lutheranism barnstar candidate2.png. I suppose the image should be moved to commons, and also put into a template like {{The da Vinci Barnstar}}, but I didn't want to move it without checking with you first. I think "Barnstar of Indulgence" would be a good title. Again, I cannot thank you enough. Pastordavid 17:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome! I'm glad to help out.

I've uploaded the image to the Commons as Image:Barnstar of Indulgence.png and created Template:The Barnstar of Indulgence. —David Levy 20:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Martin Luther

I know you are busy but there are bad things happening on the talk page of the Martin Luther article. They look like they could do with some of your famous calm words so if you have a minute it would be great if you could have a look. Sophia 20:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to help - I think you did help them focus on moving forward. I found Bob a great guy to work with once you got used to his librarian emphasis on referencing everything - quite rightly so IMO. I've even known him to edit for the enemy by adding "Jesus-Myth" references. I shall keep watching the article to make sure no one is being lynched again. I do worry that, as you say, if the article goes the way SV intends it will make the classic error of judging Luther and his works by today's post holocaust era sensibilities. By today's standards he was probably a misogynist too so we should bring in the feminists for their say! Thanks for what you did and I will let you know if things get out of hand again. Sophia 21:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Blocked IP

Thanks for alerting me to the unusual unblock request and for seeking a wider audience. Much appreciated. --Steve _(Stephen)^talk 04:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

User notices

Thanks for the vote of confidence. I'm using a couple of new tools (new to me at least): NPWatcher and Twinkle. NPWatcher has automated notices for items like vandalisn, nonsense, and attack pages. Also user selectable warnings in case of notability. I'll have to look around to see what Twinkle does for that. DarkAudit 20:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Dinosauria

Hi Pastordavid,

Thanks for your note on WP:AN/I concerning mentoring good-faith editors who may be in need of mentoring. Pianoloverizme is just such an individual. It's clear he's intelligent and wants to contribute. However, what he wants to contribute is (in Theroy!!!) to every article which touches upon the age of dinosaurs, evolution, etc. Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs is staffed with six active people working on a thousand articles, and doesn't have time to continually revert poorly-spelled Christian-POV entries. Any mentorship you can provide for this user would be greatly appreciated. There is an article called Religious perspectives on dinosaurs which was intended to cover a wide array of religious beliefs about dinosaurs, but it rarely gets touched. Firsfron of Ronchester 18:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your note here. It's my hope that he will turn his efforts to one of the articles you suggested. It is not my wish to drive potentially good users off the encyclopedia. I hope your message will help redirect his efforts. Best wishes and happy editing, Firsfron of Ronchester 19:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

non-free content

Ahoy, Pastor David, I think this is what you meant to say to Benfeing? Public domain is that which no one has a copyright claim upon. Fair use, on the other end of the spectrum, is that which someone certainly does hold copyright claim upon, and we use it anyway, without even asking permission. ;-) In very limited circumstances. Always a good idea to link users to WP:NONFREE so they can try to figure it out for themselves (nobody can, but it helps to have a read through before the question and answer period begins). ··coel acan 06:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

May 2007

I thought that's what happened. I've had it happen too, so no worries. --Whs itc hy 16:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Yup, it would be hard not to since you've been given the mop (that's what clued me in as to it being accidental, also gave me a big "OH CRAP" moment) --Whs itc hy 16:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Monarchy in Canada

Hello Pastordavid, I too am upset with my vote (to Redirect the Canadian Royal Family article to Monarchy in Canada) being overturned. I've left a message at bambino's page & at the notice board. Consensus is wrong? I think not. GoodDay 23:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I've scracthed out my messages, the page was 'Redirected' afterall. GoodDay 00:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

A thought

I almost titled this "a request" but realized I would prefer your feedback on the concept first. You made the kind offer of assistance, should I ever wish it, and I believe there is a situation with which you can help. User:The Transhumanist recently failed his second Rfa; I believe he blames me, and I know he believes I am hostile to him. I do not believe the first is accurate, and I know the second is not. I was wondering if a very informal mediation might serve to correct his erroneous beliefs, and mend fences - and possibly give me the opportunity to explain, and him to hear, what I perceive to be the issues. He is very energetic and helpful, cares about Wikipedia, and I believe were he open to listening to and applying the constructive criticism offered by many editors in his Rfa it would benefit both him and the project. Unfortunately, he has personalized the criticism, and even gone so far as to state on his talk page that he intends to focus on "the stressful nature of the RfA process itself. This will entail setting an example for others in the various RfAs one participates in, in the way one responds to nominees and those judging them. Opposers are allowed to bend the rules a little too much in RfA, I believe, and get away with flingling insults, etc. My recent experience has sensitized me to that, and if I notice it in an RfA I'm !voting in, even if I'm a fellow opposer, I won't stand for it. Then we'll see just how well I know policy." - which I believe is precisely the wrong response. I would be willing to devote as much time as necessary to a detailed analysis of the oppose views, and his responses; so long as I felt it was a productive endeavor. Please let me know your thoughts on this. Reply here; I have your page watchlisted. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I will be glad to help in any way that I can. As noted above, I am a little preoccupied for a couple of days -- but I would like to take a couple of days to think about how to help sort this all out anyway, so that works out well. Let me think on it through the rest of the weekend, and we will find a way to see if we can't get this sorted out starting the beginning of next week. Pastordavid 05:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Giving up

I was just letting off steam! I really haven't got the time to deal with this at the moment so I shall just pick up the threads in a month or so and take it from there. Thanks for the kind words anyway and maybe I'll be wrong and the articles will benefit from the extra attention. Sophia 19:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Adoptee message-What do you mean?

I have read the message you left on my talk page it read:

You may want to check out the recent contributions of your adoptee MAGI-01.

I know this person outside of Wikipedia; I no him in person he is my friend in the real world. I don't know exactly what you are implying about his edits but can you tell me on my talk page. I will talk to MAGI-01, outside of Wikipedia and I will question his edits and what are his intentions on Wikipedia.

I need you to reply to this message as soon as possible.Senators^{Talk | Contribs} 07:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I have spoken to him in the real world and he will stop the vandalism in the future.Senators^{Talk | Contribs} 01:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I have read the message you left on my talk page and I do agree that he should have been blocked the example here shows that it is a clear indication that he had to blocked. I am sad that it had to end this way with the user MAGI-01 I was the one that helped him to get involved with Wikipedia; to bad he turned to the dark side. I HATE PEOPLE VANDALIZING ON WIKIPEDIA.Senators^{Talk | Contribs} 06:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Please assist

Hi PastorDavid, I'm really having trouble with Users Griot and Calton, especially on Jeanne Marie Spicuzza and Ralph Nader articles. Please help in any way you can. Eph. 6:12. Telogen 05:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Responded on user's talk page. Pastordavid 15:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you PastorDavid. I appreciate you taking the time to respond thoughtfully; 1) Jn 2:19, things are not as they seem, thank God for miracles, and Acts 6:13, please do what you can when you have time, 2 & 3, good advice, pls remember me in your prayers. Telogen 23:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Concordia University, Nebraska

First thanks for the assessment.

Secondly, all photos that have been put up, numerous times, are provided by and put up by me, who is employed by the University. I've added to the description that I have permission from the marketing department, I thought that was enough. Thanks for your input.

Tlancaster s 19:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

EU

Thanks for your comment, do you like the EU one? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chaza93 (talk • contribs) 19:09, May 30, 2007.

Sure, but that is more a question that should be asked of wikiprojects involved in editing EU-related articles, as they are the most likely to use such a barnstar. Pastordavid 19:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Review

Could you please take a look at {{user:Wikihermit/Christ}} and tell me what you thing of it for WP:X? --T_{Talk to me} 00:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

More poo-chucker

Why did you remove the story on "poo-chucker" pitchers? Did you not like the name? EdRooney

Responded on user's talk page. Pastordavid 19:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, well how do we go about getting that article back up? I know you are a pastor, but how did you become a wiki "God"? I did extensive research before writing it. Granted, it's a silly term, but no more silly than a "knuckler" or a "slugger." It's a proven baseball term (and was cited) and it was linked into the "unusual articles" article on wikipedia.EdRooney

I would prefer that the article be restored and that folks are allowed to vote on it. Thanks. EdRooney

Responded on user's talk page. Article restored and listed at AfD. Pastordavid 21:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Austin Grossman

Why did you delete this writer/game designer's page? I am a journalist writing a profile of him, and I found your deletion to be a massive inconvenience, and may have lost recent edits. Please don't do it again.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.142.6.126 (talk) 22:06, May 30, 2007

Responded on user's talk page. Pastordavid 22:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

"Stalker" Assistance

Hey Pastor Dave. I'm not one to "run home to mommy" every time someone does something I don't like, but here we are. The article on the Zombie-genre book Twilight of the Dead was put up for deletion by User:DreamGuy, on the basis of non-notability. Another editor Josh agreed with a strong delete as self promoting and advertising [3]. I saw no basis for that, and did a little research on the book, and found some basis for consideration as a possible keep per Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria, and posted my thoughts[4]. Josh then retracted his strong delete and agreed with me. At that time, DreamGuy proceded to essentially attack me [5] and Josh [6] on our talk pages that we were absolutely wrong about notability, and asked that we change our "votes". Another editor User:Englishrose also called for a keep [7] and was also attacked [8] by Dreamguy. Dreamguy also began arguing at the AfD with comments directed against any opposing views [9] to the point of ridiculing editors who disagreed with him. Josh buckled to the pressure and ended up changing his "vote" again [10] to a delete. Now I do not have a problem with pointing out flaws in reasoning when interpreting the policies on notability, but it is approaching bullying and harrassment of any editors who do not share his views. To try to sway the consensus further, Dreamguy then "voted" as he calls it in the same AfD he nominated [11], saying the article on a book is "spam" of all things, and essentially double-dipping in the consensus discussion. Unsatisfied that I did not also change my views, which I am perfectly satisfied with, as I think what I said is correct, DreamGuy then attacks me again, accusing me of "ignoring" him (which I am), and appears to show he intends to stalk me in future AfD's [12]. He continues to think an AfD is a "vote". In any case I am very disturbed by his behavior, but am not sure if he has really crossed any lines. He is definitely attempting to intimidate me into changing my views, and appears to be threatening to call me out in all future AfD's where I might not share his opinion. I have not looked into whether he stalks editors who oppose his views at other AfD's but he seems to intend to stalk me at least. I have participated in many AfD's now, and never had another AfD editor come after me, twice even, simply for sharing my opposing viewpoint. I may be absolutely wrong in my interpretation of the notability criteria for books, but I think my views are in good faith and valid, in so far as it represents my interpretations of the guidelines and policies. I do not need someone telling me that I "just skinned (sic) the notability page" or something, and that I (and the others) should "reconsider your vote(s)". Please look into this for me, I hope the links are helpful. Thanks Pastor. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 10:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

T-dot, I am offline for a couple of days, but I will have another admin check this out and then follow up when I get back. Pastordavid 12:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Checking into it now, as requested. Please be patient, as I wish to read all of the links provided and ensure I understand the situation. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

T-dot, I understand your concern. I see no evidence of wiki-stalking. What I see is an editor with a strong opinion about notability, who is perhaps pursuing this with more vigor than you are comfortable with. His post on your page reads to me as a continuation of attempt to dialogue with you concerning what he perceives as your erroneous interpretation and application of the notability guidelines, and not a statement of intent to stalk. In other words, he disagrees with your interpretaion and application. While he could have been more civil in his approach, there is no stated or implied intent to oppose you for the mere reason of contradicting you or effectively rendering your view on future Afds invalid. He is clear that he intends to apply his interpretation of notability criteria in the future, and expresses what could be characterized as concern that you are perhaps applying criteria incorrectly - again, he could have been more civil, but that is all I see in his post. Please let me know if I have missed something, or if you think I have misinterpreted his actions and posts. It may be helpful for either you or I to attempt to clarify what his intent and thinking on this subject is, to verify or correct my interpretation. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for looking into this. I was really looking for some administrative counsel on this matter, as I have never encountered this sort of unorthodox (for me anyway) reaction to my good faith contributions to a consensus debate. I was unsure if any lines had been crossed, thus I was not interested in pressing an WP:RFC, just an opinion on civility. I basically needed a sympathetic soul to tell me if I was right, or if I was being paranoid or crazy, or if this is just part of the burden I can be expected to bear as I participate in XfD's, and to just "get out of the kitchen if I can't stand the heat". My approach to AfD's is look at the both the letter and the intent or "spirit" of the rules on notability and other AfD criteria, and then use reasoned judgement to point out possible reasons to keep, rather than reasons to delete articles that I don't happen to like or care about. I would hope that other participants in the AfD would see my comments, and decide for themselves (or reseach it a little deeper), to see if there is merit in my remarks, and to post their views independently, rather than resorting to "delete per nom" or "keep per USERXYZ" as if there was a vote being tallied, which is clearly discouraged in WP:AADD. I certainly understand that different editors have different views and attitudes on how the rules are to be used, and how strictly, to the point of wikilawyering. Hopefully between the "deletionists" and the "inclusionists" the best result will come out. I think I have been pretty balanced in supporting some deletes which appeared to be obvious, and supporting some keeps and merge/redirects when I thought there was good cause. In this particular AfD case, I could imagine a Zombie enthusiast hearing about this book from someone, perhaps an online friend, and looking for more information from the Wikipedia, like the author or the publisher, in order to find a copy somewhere. I think it is in the Wikipedia's best interest to provide that service: The article did not strike me as spammy or as an advertisement, as claimed. Anyway others disagree, and that is fine, I have done my part, the article will undoubtedly be deleted with only my "weak keep" supporting it. Frankly I don't care much about Zombie novels per se, but I guess I do care about the folks who do care about them. My bad? Anyway thanks for taking the time to investigate, and for clarifying the situation. I really do appreciate it. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 15:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

You are more than welcome, I am happy if I was able to be of any assistance to you. I think your analysis is spot-on, as regards the "part of the burden I can be expected to bear" - within limits. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and hence you will be interacting with a wide variety of people here. Some of them will share your position on what constitutes an acceptable level of civility; others will not. The line is crossed when there is harassment, which is specifically described in our guideline as "...a pattern of disruptive behavior that appears to a reasonable and objective observer to have the purpose of causing negative emotions in a targeted person or persons, usually (but not always) for the purpose of intimidating the primary target." which makes it a bit of a judgement call; stalking, a subvariant of harassment which is generally considered to be when an editor follows you and reverts your edits, or similarly takes action to negate your attempted contributions for the sole purpose of such negation; and personal attacks, which in a nutshell is commenting (negatively) on the contributor, not the content. Please let me know if I can ever be of further help to you. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

KC, thanks for fielding this one for me. You provided a great response and analysis of the situation, as I was sure that you would. Pastordavid 20:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Complaints about DreamGuy are best posted at WP:ANI since this user has left a long trail of outraged, embittered and deeply offended editors going back two years at least.--72.73.87.97 16:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Another plea

Dear Pastordavid, I'm now going to take a longer break from Wikipedia, and there is one thing I'm a bit worried about. Your calming presence might be needed on Wikipedia talk:Flagged revisions. The underlying system is something I think the Wikipedia Foundation considers very important to the Project and its credibility. Naturally, I'm not asking you to go there and support the proposal, but just make sure this doesn't turn into a major conflict. There are sufficiently reasonable people there, so there is no immediate panic, perhaps you can just keep an eye open that this doesn't take a wrong turn. To see that this is a sensitive issue, see the edit summaries here and here, where understanding the latter requires reading the talk page. While the situation is calm, I will sleep much better now that I'm sure you know about this :) --Merzul 23:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

When I have a moment (maybe tonight ... probably not till tomorrow sometime). It looks like it will take me some reading to catch up on the situation, but I will see what I can do -- with the fair warning that I am not that much of a policy wonk, so there may be some holes in my understanding. Nonetheless, I will watch it, especially in regard to civility and conduct. Pastordavid 00:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I did notice this, thanks for your reply. Note that Wikibreaks aren't something I'm very good at. It seems TJ has some similar problems ;) Anyway, I will try... from tomorrow :) --Merzul 19:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Voluntary Banning?

Hi, I wondered if it might be possible for you to ban me for about 4 weeks? Wikipedia keeps annoyingly getting in the way of my search for jobs, which I need ideally from the 2nd of July - and which is getting me pretty stressed. Furthermore, I doubt the stress really benefits the tone of some of my recent discussions - I don't think I've been very bad, but I am somewhat ashamed. I don't know if voluntary bans are allowable or anything, but I think it would be really useful! (I'll edit my user page to inform people that I've asked in case they wonder why I've been banned.) TJ 11:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Responded at user's talk page. Pastordavid 15:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Really need your help with Persecution of Christians - another section is in dispute

Hi, Pastordavid. I'm back from vacation and need your help resolving an issue with the Persecution of Christians article. Tewfik has been removing the section on persecution of Christians in Israel, saying that there is no evidence of religious-based persection and that the section is original research. I maintain that several incidents, such as removal of the population of two Christian villages, contitutes persecution of Christians. There appears to be a POV push to remove all references of persecution of Christians by Jewish people. I'd prefer to have a balanced, well-referenced presentation the matter rather than wholesale removal of entire sections.

May I impose upon you to please look at the page and lend your assistance and opinion? Thank you. Majoreditor 00:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

ME, I have a wedding today, and a baptism tomorrow, but I will look at it as soon as I possibly can. Pastordavid 17:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I am providing some sourcing, as I have time, to the Persecution of Early Christians by the Jews article, perhaps that will be helpful in your discussion on that page as well? Pastordavid 04:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Possible Bot

I have an minor idea for Wikiproject Lutheranism. If you want I could get a bot that would deliver the template {{Lutheran COTM}} each week to the members of the Wikiproject. Tell me what you think of the idea. ^Ideology_{Talk to me} £ 00:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Not at this time, responded at user's talk page. Pastordavid 14:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

A comment about the nature of consensus

Hi David,

This is a picky point but I worry when people use "consensus" to describe something that is less than that. Consensus should be either unanimity or an explicitly expressed willingness of those who dissent to go along with the majority. A 4-2 vote is not consensus; it is a supermajority. With only 6 people voting, it is a very thin supermajority at that. I always ask myself... what would happen if one or two people changed their !vote? If the answer is... "the result would look very different", then it is not a consensus.

The reason I make such a big deal about this is that, in many articles, people revert other editors for "going against the consensus opinion". This would be OK if there was a clear consensus but, often times, the "consensus" is a thin one.

To me, a clear consensus is one that runs 15-5 or better. Less than 20 votes or less than 75% is not a consensus in my book. I know those are high standards but, unless we have that kind of consensus, we are better off to just call it a majority or supermajority as the case may be. Being careful about how we use the word "consensus" keeps us from illegitimately using the word as a club to force the majority opinion on the other side.

--Richard 23:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I was asking myself the same question in NPOV-POV disputes on A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism and ‎Objections to evolution. The discussion is among the same 4 or so editors that show up/comment and they simply declare consensus ad hoc. That is not my definition of 'consensus'. Northfox 09:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Persecution of Christians

In contrast to the civil and reasoned discussion that we are having over at Persecution of early Christians by the Jews, there is an on-again-off-again edit war between User:Bakasuprman and User:Paul Barlow over persecution of Christians in India. Could you take a look and maybe give them a friendly exhortation to stop the edit warring?

--Richard 04:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. While I am dealing with my other commitments, I really hope that the article will improve. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 06:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

A change I made on the Template:Book of Concord

Hi, Pastordavid, I made a change in the template that you formulated—excellent work I might add—I changed the caption from "The Lutheran Confessions - Texts of the Book of Concord" to "The Lutheran Confessions - Documents of the Book of Concord." I hope that is OK. My resoning is that if you have "texts," people might think that linking to each of the entries below one would link to the full text. I thought that "document" was better. If you want to change it back, that will be OK by me. By the way, I have put the Augsburg Confession, the Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope, and The Small Catechism on Wikisource. Please feel free to edit these as you see fit. My goal is to put the Apology, the Smalcald Articles, the Large Catechism, and the Formula of Concord onto Wikisource. I have taken them from the Triglot Concordia (Concordia Triglotta), since it is in public domain, and I have electronic documents of the same that can easily be put into the appropriate sandboxes.--Drboisclair 03:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Eielsen Synod

PD I noticed you have done a lot of work on the history of several Lutheran groups in the US. I was wondering if you had any information on the Eielsen Synod, especially post 1950 thanks Smith03 20:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

thanks for your reply. I assume that is from the C E Nelson book? From what I have found there were 2 left by the mid 1980s one in Jackson MN and one in French Lake MN. The Jackson church (i guess) closed sometime after that, but I don't know if still would be consider a synod with 1 or 2 churches? Perhaps I will do some more research and write a book called the "Eielsen Synod: The Lost Tribe of Lutheranism" :) thanks again Smith03 02:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Afd

I like your improvements. I don't see what's the big deal about merging that into the Luther article though. It's not very long. It could fit nicely under a "In Popular Culture" section given most of the movies are documentaries and such. You see, what we're trying to do is cut down on list of films about lists because they have been getting out of control lately. I understand this was probably cut off from the main article to keep it from getting to big but really, the article is already really long, and I don't think a few more lines would hurt it. Bulldog123 22:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I see. Well maybe Martin Luther in popular culture, if it doesn't become just an arbitrary list, could be a good alternative. Maybe even more could be cut from the main article then. Bulldog123 23:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Repost

Hrrmmm... Can I ask you what's this message you just posted on my talkpage? I have no idea of what it could mean. --Sébastien Leblanc ^{( Talk | E-mail )} 14:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't recall creating any page either named [[<]], [[<]] or even [[<]]. I don't even recall creating a single page at all, except for uploaded images. Please clarify what this could mean. Thank you. --Sébastien Leblanc ^{( Talk | E-mail )} 15:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Reply

Okay, but what do you suggest I do? He's taking out content from the template for no reason.►Chris Nelson 16:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm soooo trying

I'm trying not to 3RR with this user, but he is busting templates. He continues to assert WP:OWN yet he doesn't understand what he is doing. I requested 30, and they suggested RFC, which I did. THe other user saw this, I have asked him to leave it alone until he knows what he is doing. This is creating display issues all over wikipedia. I have already asked for the template to be fully locked for a temporary period of time, and during the wait, he started editing again. I am violating the "word of the template" but not the spirit. Please understand I am not the problem, I just want some sanity. Jmfangio| ►Chat 16:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Template_talk:Infobox_NFLactive

Hi Pastor D -

I have tried to help out as a WP:3O by answering the RFC for the NFL template problem. I don't see how these guys are going to reach a solution on the matter of displaying the Pro Bowl years. Both editors have their backs up and heels dug in. Any further investment of time on my part is highly unlikely to swing the balance. I don't know what else to do. If you have advice, I'm all ears, but I don't see how this resolves itself without something more binding.

Jddphd 22:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

It looks like other avenues are being pursued ... and at the very least the article is protected for now -- they're lucky, looking at the article history I would have slapped blocks on them both. But, another admin is involved and I'm away from my home computer for now, so I think it is best to just let things run their course. Pastordavid 20:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I've done nothing to warrant a block lately, thanks.►Chris Nelson 21:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Block us both, seriously. I'm sick of this. Please for sanity's sake - block us both! Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 21:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for input

I have started a request for peer review of a recently created article at Wikipedia:Peer review/Calendar of saints (Anglican Church of Southern Africa)/archive1. Any input you might see fit to give would be very appreciated. Thank you. John Carter 15:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure thing -- I'll give it a once over early next week. Pastordavid 20:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you so much for your comment, Pastor David. Oh, and I notice you're a Lutheran. I am, too! Also, I was the founder of the Denmark Wikiproject, so you & I are common in that. Well, bye. Laleena^{talk to me contributions to Wikipedia} 20:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Jesus myth hypothesis

Hi Pastor.

Tempers are often raised on the Jesus myth hypothesis page, as you'll probably be able to guess from the title. Was wondering whether you'd be able to go there and contribute at all - you're a committed Christian who has a history of being able to communicate well with those of different religious beliefs and none, so I imagine that you'd be quite effective in dealing with both sides.

I'm actually off on a wikibreak for a while now, so won't read or even know what you respond with, but felt I wanted to ask because I'm sure you'd do the article no end of good. TJ 00:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Just Saying Hi

I can't belive I've never found your user page before. Very nice to "meet" you, and Wow! you've done some good work here. Cjoshuav 00:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back!

Glad to see you back. I hope and pray whatever concerns have kept you busy are resolved satisfactorily soon. And no one can be faulted for unpredictable events, so don't say anything's your "fault", OK? Even forgetting signatures. I did that once today myself, and I don't have the excuse you do. John Carter 21:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

"Resolved" probably isn't the right word - my first child (a beautiful baby girl) was born in September. Everything is very good - fantastic even - I just needed to take a break toward the end of the pregnancy until she was born. Just making a little joke about my prolonged, and unexplained, absence. But thank you for the words of welcome - it will be good to get back. Pastordavid 22:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

More than enough cause. You've got several concerns to deal with, and sleep will probably be a biggie for quite awhile. From what I know of you, I have to think that you're among the better people to be parents I can know. And I don't think anyone can have any problems with you having your priorities in the right place. John Carter 22:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back from me to, Pastor. Congratulations on your new parenthood!--Cúchullain ^t/c 02:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Congratulations and welcome back. I hope you're getting some sleep at night. Looking forward to working with you again next year. Majoreditor 04:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Daniel Estulin

The request to have the article Daniel Estulin deleted per WP:SOAP has been contested. | DUKERED^{FREE SPEECH} 04:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I must have been confounded, as the template was still there. | DUKERED^{FREE SPEECH} 04:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for deleting prodded articles

Thank you for deleting Gellar field, at last someone got to it. But I just want to point at the notice to admins on WP:PROD: please don't use a delete-reason like "uncontested prod" , but write something meaningful, like using the proposers reason if that was a clear one. Going out on a limb here, Greswik 22:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Noted. Pastordavid (talk) 18:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Last Supper

Would you agree with the proposition that the Last Supper as referenced in Mark and Matthew is set as a Passover meal, is either common knowledge or consensus, in wiki terms, and thereby need no citation, or would such a reference need a citation from a reliable secondary source, or would there be some other proper way of including it in an article? Eschoir (talk) 03:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Responded on user's talk page. Pastordavid (talk) 18:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. The subject is this table I organized from Dominic Crossan's Historical Jesus p 360-367.

The other two editors insist in Talk:Eucharist that saying "Passover" for Mark and Matthew needs a citation, therefore the table says (among a myriad other problems) Matthew and Mark have no passover mention, with a bizarre footnote that says, yes, they really do.

My suspicion is that, if it is not common knowledge, or at least consensus, because we all agree that Matthew and Mark place the last supper as Passover meal, and it needs to be sourced, then ALL the material in the boxes of the table need to be equally sourced, and not from the primary source.

Which means that my table, totally sourced from Crossan, is the more useable table, at the moment. Eschoir (talk) 19:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Eschoir, I removed the charts, as they took up a great deal of room on my talk page. Here are my thoughts, which I will also post at Talk:Eucharist. All of the categories in the chart require interpretation, and thus should be footnoted. The better option with the chart, if you really want to use a chart, is to simply list what the primary sources say, side by side. Pastordavid (talk) 21:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Eschoir (talk) 04:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations

And welcome back! Hope all is going well with the new addition, and good to see you back around. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Son of God

My substantive question is thus. I studied Russian in college. Russian has no articles, so you can only say "pass me bread" not pass me the bread. I have read enough to confuse me whether Aramaic is similarly structured. It must have been addressed in the literature somewhere before me. Is it possible to source the following statement: In the tongue Jesus is most likely to have spoken, it would have been linguistically impossible to differentiate between "a son of God" and "the Son of God"? Eschoir (talk) 22:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Headwaters Incorporated

This is in fact a pretty large U.S. corporation:NYSE listed, important in its industry, covered by Valueline. I would suggest that you restore it, then tag it for POV/advert problems. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC) (and congrats on your firstborn; I'm still grinning at this daddy thing, 12 years after my Kelly came along)

I'd suggest restoring it, then stripping it down to a stub (possibly based on one of the prior edits; it's been deleted twice now) and tagging it as a corporate stub. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)