Jump to content

User talk:Pastordavid/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team

The above named group chooses articles for the various release versions. If you will note, there are currently comparatively few articles relating to religion included. I think that this might be due to having comparatively few active editors in the project who deal with religion articles. Given your knowledge of the field, I think you would be a wonderful person to help select articles for inclusion in the various release versions, particularly those articles which relate to religion. John Carter 14:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I will be glad to help out. I have looked over the project page, and there are a great deal of subpages. Could you direct me to the conversation in question - about where the discussion is going on regarding which articles to include? Pastordavid 15:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Release Version gives the basic format for the selection process, and Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations lists the articles that are currently being considered for inclusion in the next release version. I am trying to add all the religion related FA, GA, etc., to the various Religion project article lists, but that will take quite a while. I do note that Christianity, though, for all of its size and historical importance, seems to be underrepresented. As I go through the Religion projects, I'll be able to see which others are as well. John Carter 15:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


Editorial Assistance Requested

I have all kinds of trouble with Wikipedia. It was not easy to figure out how to contact someone as it is made very unclear. Anyways, the problem is that there 2 authors who have deleted essential added information as well as a comment on the discussion. The information is clearly correct, well sourced, and very verifiable but. This is totally against policy. I have tried to file a request for mediation but even the filing doesn't work. I hope you can help. `````

Thanks for the response. I will try those suggestions. How were you able to contact me directly? ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpell (talk • contribs) 10:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I have edited my 1st comment as the person was not lying, I had made an error in the information but there was another article/editor that could be a problem. Bpell (talk) 04:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

question, seeking your knowledge

Sometimes Wikipedia has good articles and sometimes not so good. I am trying to find out if the Seventh Day Adventist church is a cult or not. Specifically, what doctrines do other denominations oppose. In your opinion, is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Seventh-day_Adventist_Church written accurately or are there some things that are missing or inaccurate.

Thank you. Seekinganswer (talk) 02:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Comments on Knox

Hello. The article already reached FA, but I would be very much interested in your comments. You can leave them on my user or the article talk page. Thanks! --RelHistBuff (talk) 17:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Gregory of Nazianzus as Maninpage Feature Article of the Day?

David, I was wondering about nominating the Gregory article for Feature Article of the Day. Any thoughts? I'm also thinking about another Wikiproject Saints collaboration; I should check the project site and see what's been nominated. Cheers, Majoreditor 05:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for nominating. Majoreditor 22:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
David, thanks for the note. I am so glad to learn about the plans for the article to be featured on the mainpage. Majoreditor (talk) 03:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Basil of Caesarea article improvement drive

I like your suggestion of Basil. It wouldn't take too much work -- relatively speaking -- to improve the article. I can get started on it by next weekend; I'll need to run by the library and pick up some books. I will also nominate it for improvemnt drive at Saints WP. Majoreditor 22:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Diodore of Tarsus

Great work! You've added true substance to the article. Majoreditor 02:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


DYK note

Hi Pastor David, just wanted to drop a note and say that I really hope my comments at WT:DYK didn't seem rude. I put down a quick reply during my morning coffee break and wasn't very mindful of the tone, or considerate that you might stumble across the comment. You are indeed correct that, as the guideline is hard to locate, it's not at all fair to gripe about people missing it. So again, I apologize for the bluntness and hope it doesn't dissuade you from future contributions at DYK.

As a personal note, I'm glad to see you coming back from your break and congratulations on the birth of your daughter! We never interacted before, though I remember your RfA where people grumbled about the † in your sig. I thought it was fine. Oh well, such is the Wiki. (Perhaps I'm sympathetic because I have a close relative who is a Missouri Synod pastor.) I also recall we were both involved around the {{Infobox NFLactive}} drama. I had tried to help Jmfangio on some stuff unrelated to the dispute. Turns out he was a sockpuppet of a banned user. Too bad because he had really creative ideas and obviously loved contributing. Cheers! --JayHenry (talk) 04:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Sola scriptura

There's a question for your consideration at the bottom of Talk:Sola_scriptura#Roman_Catholic_position. --Flex (talk/contribs) 19:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Gregory, of Nazianzus, Christian universalist

Hi Pastordavid. I noticed that an editor has modified the article on Gregory of Nazianzus to assert that Gregory was a Christian universalist. Let's discuss on the article's talk page. Thanks, Majoreditor (talk) 03:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Responded on article talk page. Pastordavid (talk) 17:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! Majoreditor (talk) 17:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Your message

Hi Pastor and thanks for your message. I am not surprised that a dispute has broken out on that page. It was simmering even before the recent elections. The Red-Greens allowed the controversial Asmaa Abdol-Hamid to stand as a candidate for them, and this decision was so controversial that it seems that many of the party's Marxists seem to have left the Red-Greens for the Socialist People's Party. On the other hand, it is likely that the party made up part of this loss by attracting new voters of Muslim immigrant background, since many imams had urged Muslims to vote for Asmaa Abdol-Hamid (I haven't seen any studies on the effect of this backing, though). A few months after these events, elections were somewhat unexpectedly called, and the Red-Greens only scraped into parliament an inch above the 2% threshold. They lost two seats (down to four) and the entire event has aroused controversy on the left wing. Interestingly, a group in the party had tried to get a new party convention convened to address the candidature of Asmaa Abdol-Hamid and possibly to place her further down the party ticket. This party convention never took place as our last elections were called unexpectedly. That's the jist of the situation, and the entire event is no doubt controversial in Socialist circles in Denmark. Unfortunately, I can't be of much help here. Not only have I almost stopped editing on the English Wikipedia (due to time concerns and several other issues), but anyone taking a glimpse at my user page will notice that I am a member of the largest government party, a centre-right party. However, as the Red-Greens hate us feverishly and have a habit of throwing all kinds of abuse our way (including routine allegations of racism, Fascism, the digging of a "social mass grave" and what have you), I doubt that these people will consider a person like me acceptable to get involved in a matter like this, and I have no desire to waste my time on this type of people. My own personal experience goes contrary to what many people would expect; in Denmark, I don't think I've ever really met a right-wing thick-head that didn't ultimately accept the premise that others had the right to disagree with him. Unfortunately, the same kind of (relative) tolerance seems to be much sparser on the extreme left wing, despite their claims to the contrary. So all in all, I can't be of much help here, and I would recommend caution when dealing with issues like this.

Turning to something more positive :) I was glad to hear from you and to see the message on your talk page. Many congratulations, and I hope that you and your family are all doing well. All my best wishes for mother and daughter and a very merry Christmas to you all. Valentinian T / C 01:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Elise Harris

Hello Pastordavid,

I have a couple questions, but first some background information is required. Apparently recently Elise Harris posted on one of her blogs that she would like to have a Wikipedia page. This prompted one of her fans to create a page for her which has been removed and I understand that there was some sort of dialogue between you and this person on this matter. It is not my job to determine who or what deserves to be on Wikipedia. However, I do wish to clarify that there is definitely an entertainer named Elise Harris and she has won an award for best actress in the 2006 Super Shorts contest, one of her videos was Featured on UK Youtube and an agent did contact her about writing a book based on video Vegetable Series. So I guess my questions are....

1. There are some concerns that the actions of this one well meaning, but overzealous fan will make it more difficult for her to get a page in the future. Will this hurt her?

2. I guess there is some question on how well notable does one need to be?

I just want to let your know that there is a serious entertainer behind the incident and I don't want to see her penalized.

Thank you for your time.

Larkvall —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.243.64.246 (talk) 05:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Please see my response on the talk page of your IP. Pastordavid (talk) 16:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Origin of religion

I have made some comment here for which I would appreciate a response. Muntuwandi (talk) 22:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Since you are a pastor I think that there is a conflict of interest in this article because it deals with evolution. I don't believe you can be objective in this dispute. Muntuwandi (talk) 02:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I get the impression that administrators are looking for an easy way out by just following procedure. If an article was deleted two years ago does the consensus still stand. I don't think so, wikipedia editors come and go. A few dedicated editors like myself have been consistent over the last 3 years but that is not the same for everyone. We cannot simply always look to one consensus and view that as the holy grail of all decisions. I have seen articles get nominated for deletion three times and only on the third attempt do they get deleted.I am sure you have seen the same. The initial consensus to keep the article was overridden. Therefore consensus is never final on wikipedia and is on going and ever evolving. They accused me of fabricating information only to find that all the content was verifiable and met all standards for WP:RS. Because the other editors have failed to discredit the content they have now resorted to the only card they have in the bag, and that is the previous AFDs. If you see the article Development of religion it is a mix of unrelated content that includes information on evolution such as Neanderthal burials and charismatic leaders such as Swami Vivekananda Jesus, Francis of Assisi, John Calvin and Joseph Smith. Sorry to clutter your page with all this, I just disagree with always falling back on an old consensus. Muntuwandi (talk) 05:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Imperial triple crown jewels

It gives me great pleasure to award these imperial triple crown jewels to Pastordavid in thanks for substantial contributions to Wikipedia's coverage of religion. DurovaCharge! 00:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Your Imperial Majesty, it's good to be able to upgrade your triple crown. From the looks of your user page you may qualify for the Napoleonic crown before much longer. Best wishes, Merry Christmas, and happy editing. DurovaCharge! 00:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Pappy's Fun Club

Sorry, not trying to vote twice. I incorrectly assumed that when an AfD nomination was relisted the vote reset. Would strike through as you suggested but the page is now marked as not to be edited. Best regards. Brendan D (talk) 01:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD for List of Spoken Word performers

Hi, you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of notable spoken word performers stating that a category already existed for the topic. I'd like to ask you to reverse that decision. The problem is, many of the the names on the list don't have Wiki articles to include in the category (not because the names aren't notable, but just because it's such a specialized topic that editors haven't gotten around to creating articles for everybody), so there's really no way the list could be adequately transformed to a category. Also, per WP:CLS, a category shouldn't substitute for a list (or vice versa). Thanks. Torc2 (talk) 00:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi again, per your request, the topic is up for review. Thanks for your help! -- Torc2 (talk) 11:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of notable spoken word performers. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Torc2 (talk) 11:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Muntuwandi unblock request

Ryulong has blocked User:Muntuwandi indefinitely after seeing him on multiple AN/I threads, "never in a positive light". In his unblock request, he has requested that you and another admin look it over as you are, he says, more familiar with the case. Could you? Daniel Case (talk) 05:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Lindgren Removal

Merry Christmas and best of a new year

I would like to take issue with certain remarks relating to the removal of my entry. I did not initially post the entry.

Dr Lindgren (talk) 09:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

DrLindgren, I am a bit busy at the moment. Let me say that (a) I was not the person who deleted the article, rather I posted at editor assistance to try to explain to you what happened, (b) as I stated at editor assistance, I think there are reasonable reasons why the article as it was got deleted, and (c) Let me strongly suggest that you read the wikipedia guidelines about conflict of interest and your first article as these may help you. Finally, if you wish to pursue this further, you are welcome to ask for a deletion review, which will seek consensus about whether the article ought to have been deleted or if it should be restored. If you would like help listing it at deletion review (I know these processes can seem daunting to the unfamiliar), I would be happy to, but know that my time is limited at the moment. Pastordavid (talk) 19:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi David,

As I have remarked, I am not offended at the removal of the entry. However, as a former Chancellor of the Order of the Dragon under the Crown Prince Bao Long and former Secretary General of the Order of the Dragon and Royal House of Rwanda under King Kigeli V I was offended at best by the original remarks (not made by you). However, you are the only one who had the respect to answer and I appreciate it very much. I do not wish to have my name re-entered as it will probably be removed again.I would also love to have my DrLindgren site removed (I do not know if that is possible) and retain the Royalhistorian one.

In respect.

Royalhistorian (talk) 03:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Muntuwandi

some comments have been posted at User_talk:Muntuwandi#Consensus_can_change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Systemicbias (talk • contribs) 19:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Hi Pastor David!!!

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!! I hope you have a successful year to come!!! Best, --Be happy!! (talk) 09:52, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

happy mango season

happy Mango season

'TIS MANGO SEASON....
Have a shlice of mango cheek...well, I am up to my armpits in the things. Yuletide means lots and lots of mangos, as well as turkey and ham and ice-cream and pressies. Were on special so I bought 3 crates for AU$20 and now I have both crispers in the refrigerator full and even with everyone eating two of the ##$@& things every mealtime... I am a bit mangoed out so I thought I'd spread the goodwill around...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: ER

Thanks for the review. I'll check out 3O and RfC, I think I'll do well there, especially at 3O, because two-person disputes are often brought to EAR. I also really like contributing to articles by doing some writing; I really want to get a Good Article under my belt. Happy editing! J-ſtanContribsUser page 19:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

A Barca do Sol

Hello Pastordavid. I have removed your CSD tag from the article A Barca do Sol because it asserts the notability of the band. However, if you disagree, you or I can set up an AFD nomination. Thanks for your time, and congratulations on the birth of your baby girl. :) Regards, Keilanatalk(recall) 19:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem at all, everyone makes mistakes. Feel free to drop me a message if you need anything! Regards, Keilanatalk(recall) 19:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

PROD removal

You are quite right, I forgot to check the article history when I PROD'ed it. I'll be more thorough next time! I'll also do as you recommend and AfD it. Thanks for the heads-up. ><RichardΩ612 20:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

RE:Biohazard signs

Yes, I know it hasn't really been deleted, but I think it should not redirect until an editor has time to incorporate the text to the redirecting article. I, unfortunately, will not have the time for a while, so perhaps leaving the article without the redirect, would attract someone to do so. -- penubag  03:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

How is an article considered to be spam?

I have seen today that my contribution on wikipedia with the article 4PSA VoipNow has been deleted. I have read almost all the articles concerning deletion and other posts from people giving a reason like:
It's the same with X and that article is still on.
I think that if one is interested on a certain subject and looks data on the internet and finds a good solution to his/hers problems it's good to contribute with the solution. Like others I was looking for a software to do the work for me. Since I've seen other articles on similar problems I've considered to add it to the Wikipedia project.
The article is not spam, and the software is popular, being used by a lot of companies to give hosted VoIP services. Each provider has hundreds of clients on each VoipNow based server. Additionally, the article accurately describes the product and follows the Wikipedia guidelines. I spent some time writing it and I don't think that it's fair deleting it, moreover it is a simple presentation not an advertisement. Ralucac (talk) 15:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD Haymaker Sandwich

Boy am I embarrassed. Mine is the last comment in the Haymaker Sandwich AfD. In it, I refer to an earlier comment by Bruxism. So far, so good. To do so, though, I just copied that user's [[User:Bruxism|Bruxism]] into my own comment. There would still be no problem, except, obviously, I must have used a "copy/delete" command rather than a simple "copy", thereby removing that user's identity, and leaving a "citation needed" in its wake. I would repair the damage myself, except for the bright red Please do not modify it notice. Would you mind doing what's needed? Thank you. Tim Ross 23:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem, taken care of. Pastordavid (talk) 01:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

RE: How is an article considered to be spam?

Thanks you for answering to my question. I would appreciate if the article was given one more change by restoring it.
As you said that it has not been written about, I tried to dig up a little bit about it and found a lot of press releases on several well known websites which are not of course relevant at this point. But I also found a printed article on the subject. I would like to give it a change in the AfD debate and see what others think about it. Thanks Ralucac (talk) 13:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Well done

Thanks. It's funny you should mention, I was actually going to ask for your assistance on this discussion about an AfD you closed. I was waiting for an answer before I closed it, but it was fine. I was going to ask if you could perform the page history merge because I didn't want to screw anything up, but I decided I needed to learn sometime, so I performed it. It worked! Thanks again, J-ſtanContribsUser page 17:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

John Carter, renamed

John Carter's username was just changed from the older one to 'John Carter', in case you'd like to update the RfA note so the contribs link works. thanks --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 05:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Stunned response (Ok, I was a little prepared)

It might be a bit overdone, but I'm unfortunately somewhat like that. Anyway, this is the first one sent.

Would appreciate your opinion on Blood Mountain edits

Hi, Pastordavid. I'd like to get your opinion on material that user Bostonboy85 keeps adding to the Blood Mountain article [[1]]. I believe that adding material about a film which hasn't yet been made, by a person of marginal notability, presents some problems -- it's crystal ball, it's not newsworthy, there are no reliable sources to support and the link is self-promoting. And who knows, there may be potential WP:BIO issues.

Rather than revert Bostonboy85 again, I'd appreciate having another set of eyes examine the edits. Can you take a look at it? Thanks!. Majoreditor (talk) 14:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


Thanks for checking and the 3rd opinion! Majoreditor (talk) 20:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Trinitarian Apologies

Would you like for me to remove the discussion and put it on my talk page? I'm sure she'll follow me there easily enough.

Also, I'll probably have to stop any further updates because, as I said, this person follows my account. She wouldn't have made those anti-sabellian redundancies if I had never corrected them before.Tim (talk) 20:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thank you for the barnstar - it's nice when someone notices :-) TerriersFan (talk) 21:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the cool headed words to Samurai Commuter.

On another subject, is there any authority for either side of the proposition "Jesus never ate with baptized people"?Eschoir (talk) 05:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The cool headed words didn't work, user:Samurai commuter reverted Free Republic again. Eschoir (talk) 14:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

AFD response

Thank you Pastor. This was well-said and much needed. / edg ☺ ☭ 21:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

You're quite welcome. This AfD has certianly produced a very interesting conversation. Pastordavid (talk) 21:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

FA Nomination

I thought you might like to know that Liturgical calendar (Lutheran), an article within the scope of WikiProject Lutheranism, is now a Featured Articel Candidate. Please express your opinion. -- jackturner3 (talk) 19:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Trinitarianism and Nontrinitarianism

Thought you might be interested in the articles and talk pages above. John Carter (talk) 22:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Offer to Admin Coach

I would love to have your help in this area. Please note that I am no stranger to admin duties and pick-up responsibilities quite easy. Mostly I need help understanding what the admin duties are, more than how or with what attitude to address them. I have moved my coaching request to the Matched group and created my Admin Coaching page. Please let me know what my first assignment is and I'll be happy to get started. Padillah (talk) 13:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Blood Mountain (the movie)

Ah, the saga continues.

This new article was created on the not-yet-produced Blood Mountain movie. I can't find any mention of it in reliable sources -- the IMDB database listing doesn't mean very much. He's also added a link to the top of the Blood Mountain article, which strikes me as quasi-advertising.

Do you think this should be summarily deleted, brought to AFD, or left alone? Thanks, Majoreditor (talk) 22:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Never mind. Pegasus just speedly-deleted the article. Ah, the saga ends. (Or will there be a sequel? Bad puns, a sure sign I should get to sleep.) Majoreditor (talk) 04:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Conflict overview

Could you take a look and tell me what you feel is the best course of action in this case? The user has agreed to mediation but continues to make the same contentious edit. I looked at his contribs and they are all the same subject. He has constantly attacked through the edit summaries, he has refused to discuss the conflict for more than a few sentences and even then it's after having reverted the conflicting image... I don't want to go off the deep end but it appears to me to be pretty blatant what is happening. Let me know what you think and what steps it looks like I should take. I'll leave this on my Admin Coaching page as well. Padillah (talk) 06:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Input

Can you provide your input here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_converts_to_Judaism#List_of_Clergy

Thanks. Divamia (talk) 04:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Peer review of Huldrych Zwingli

Hello Pastordavid. This article is under peer review and it might be of interest to you. Would you be able to help by providing comments? --RelHistBuff (talk) 07:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Hypostasis: "substance" or "subsistence"?

Hi, Pastordavid. Can you take a look at this edit at Cappadocian Fathers? The editor has replaced the word "substance" with "subsistence", claiming it's the proper English translation for the Greek word "hypostasis". I'm suspicious. Thanks! Majoreditor (talk) 22:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for investigating. Oh, BTW -- I plan to start working again on the Basil article, with the hopes of GA nomination sometime this spring. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 04:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Looking for another opinion

Hi, I know you're busy, but I would like another opinion on this matter. I'm hoping you can read both our sides and answer my question as to how to post the fact that a film has won an award without being perceived as anything besides factual information. Thanks in advance, Lisa Ltrifone (talk) 00:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:ELCA Predecessor Churches

Category:ELCA Predecessor Churches, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. – Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletion Review for Future timeline of Earth

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Future timeline of Earth. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Editor Assistance/Requests

Hiya, been watching you tidy up the last 90 or so threads. (WP:EAR is on my watchlist). Honestly I'd give a hand but I only reply to threads that I can help with and a lot of them are much beyond my capabilities, so deciding whether they are {{resolved}}, {{stale}} or {{stuck}} is a little beyond me. I promise in future that when I see a reply and all is good, I will mark it straight away.

What do you think about updating the FAQ? It is pretty cool but it is dosn't answer half the questions posed and my reasoning has always been that before we refer editors to policy and guidelines we should provide a thumbsketch/nutshell of what they need to look for.

Thanks for your mega hard work - barnstar on its way :-) -- BpEps - t@lk 17:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Terrific will get to work on FAQ at the weekend and in view of your tireless hard work the last couple of days I humbly award you:
The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
In recognition of your outstanding hard work on Editor Assistance / Requests, particularly your work during the past few days marking up a huge backlog and archiving, I award you The Working Wikipedian's barnstar. (Commendation) With Grateful Thanks. BpEps - t@lk 18:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Again Kind regards and thanks for all your help -- BpEps - t@lk 18:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

My proposal

Hi Pastor David,

Hope you are doing well. Could you please take a look at my proposal here [2]. Thanks in advance, Cheers, --Be happy!! (talk) 09:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Greetings and Thank you!

Hi Pastor David

Thank you for your help on the Shinnyo-en article, but I am still not clear. Maybe it is because I am trying to learn my way around here the same way I learn to operate a new electronic device! I tend to open it and try it before reading the directions! That is my problem, I know! My question remains, how do I get copyrighted material into an article. Is it simply a matter of using quotations and assigning references? The current poster, Mind Meal seems well intentioned enough and this is certainly not personal, but as a person inside the faith, I know that several of the quoted references are simply not true. When I raised the issue with him, he said "Wikipedia is uninterested in organizations seeking to control the flow of information about them when they don't like the coverage they've received." Perhaps fair enough, but not if the sources used are simply untrue. You as a pastor seem to post within the Christian community and I respect that. It makes sense. Mind Meal also said that the submission I posted "read like a press release, and did nothing to inform the readers". That is a purely subjective comment. The submission I posted has history (verifiable) and the main scripture and practice of Shinnyo-en. For those that are on the outside, those are important pieces of information. What concerns me, and I'm sure this is the beauty and the beast of Wikipedia, is that he believes he is being factual, basing that on some references of compiled religious encyclopedia. But as an adherent to the faith, I know he is misrepresenting the teaching and causing unnecessary ill feeling. I have started a respectful dialogue with him and hope to resolve the issue. I am simply hoping for the issue to be resolved respectfully and for a fair representation of our faith. Our doors are always open and we welcome all people of any faith. We are Buddhists after all! Peace to you and thank you for any advice you can send to me! Pintomarke (talk) 04:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

PROD on 2XL (band)

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from 2XL (band), which you proposed for deletion, because its deletion has previously been contested or viewed as controversial. Proposed deletion is not for controversial deletions. For this reason, it is best not to propose deletion of articles that have previously been de-{{prod}}ed, even by the article creator, or which have previously been listed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article, but feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Redfarmer (talk) 22:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

PROD on Christopher Brewin

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Christopher Brewin, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. I have nominated the article for deletion instead; the debate may be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Brewin, which overrides the need for a {{prod}} tag. I have explained my reasons for doing this in my nomination. Thanks! Redfarmer (talk) 22:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I realize that

And I might not put them on reversions of bigots in future. John Nevard (talk) 01:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


CoSort Article for deletion

I am in the process of re-writing the CoSort article so that it doesn't sound "spammy" while providing more notable information. I admit that I am unsure of the direction so far... but I am willing to learn and make the appropriate changes as needed. I have requsted information on other good/notable business article templates to assist me in this direction. Anything you could suggest, would be very helpful and appreciated.

Thank you! Dkkrms (talk) 20:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


John Cooper (musician)

Hi David,

Neither do I intend in any way to get myself into an edit war. I even thought about leaving a note on your talk page before making any changes, but then decided to follow the cycle and make the revert, and if issues arise, talk about it.

Technically, per WP:MUSIC, we should delete/redirect the members' articles to Skillet (band). I've noticed, though, that this rule seems to get bended a lot. For example, take the members of Switchfoot. Technically, I think Tim could be considered non-notable (unless WP:IAR applies), since the article does not mention him having any notable activity outside the band. But why hasn't it been deleted? Probably because the band is very notable with a level of fame, and the article is a GA. Also, his brother is not only the main songwriter of the band, but known for other projects as well.

As for the John Cooper article, first off the style tends to be unencyclopedic, and it contains several unsourced/trivia statements (which is why I created a Trivia section, just to use as a sorting ground). Do you think the article could be improved, possibly kept, if I cleaned it up somewhat and added appropriate sections, perhaps quotes about his songwriting? I know this does not directly address the notability concern, but a well-written article would more worth keeping in general.

Sorry that this was kind of long. Let me know what you think - thanks! --JamieS93 16:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I know - the guidelines seem very clear about it, which means that the Skillet member articles should all be redirected. I'm trying not to be too biased with my own feelings about this; I've done some work on those articles, and am kind of attached to them. :) It might just be me, but it bugs me how many articles would have to get redirected/deleted if the rules were strictly followed. So, it just strikes me as inconsistent if these Skillet member articles were redirected, but many similar ones left around. --JamieS93 19:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

A Secret History of the IRA

Dear Pastordavid,

Could you help with with the article A Secret History of the IRA? You recently made an edit or two there. An editor, One Night In Hackney, has repeatedly attacked the article (from my view). His edits reflect POV. It's quite frustrating. Any advice you have will be appreciated. As it is, I'm trying to include that the author of the book, Ed Moloney, interviewed primary sources. One would think this is noncontroversial, but One Night In Hackney insists that the information on the book be kept to a minimum, which again reflects his POV. Thank you. --WilliamHanrahan (talk) 01:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terra Nature Fund

Hey there, thanks for closing this AfD. Unfortunately, I was just about to add on Graeme Woodhouse, another article created by the same account, the president of the Terra Nature Fund. I feel like having another AfD would be rather silly at this point. What would you recommend? GlassCobra 20:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and ...

you are one of the shining examples that it is possible to edit Wikipedia while still creating an atmosphere of collaboration, rather than the "fighting the POV-pushers" mentality that I fell a victim to. I will probably not edit as actively as before, but in the end, I hope, it will be constructive. Best regards, Merzul (talk) 20:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Template:Notability progress

Your update seems to work fine... Did you try clearing your browser's cache? Black Falcon (Talk) 20:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Victoria Theatre (Halifax)

I added some references to Victoria Theatre (Halifax) to prove notability. --Eastmain (talk) 21:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Princess Eléonore of Belgium

Ah, you beat me to it! Very well, but could you unprotect the page so I can add the DRV notice? Editorofthewiki 19:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

DRV tag added, unprotected. Pastordavid (talk) 20:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

DRV and me

Thank you so much for your kind message on my DRV goof-up. It is refreshing to get a kind word on these forums -- I often feel like I wandered into "Lord of the Flies" during some of these discussions. Please let me know if there's anyplace on Wikipedia where I can offer assistance. Be well and God bless you. Ecoleetage (talk) 20:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Victoria Theatre (Halifax)

Hi there. I have rewritten the article on the Victoria Theatre (Halifax). I'd be grateful if you would review the article and perhaps this may change your opinion on the AfD! -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 10:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Please consider taking the AGF Challenge

I would like to invite you to consider taking part in the AGF Challenge which has been proposed for use in the RfA process [3] by User: Kim Bruning. You can answer in multiple choice format, or using essay answers, or anonymously. You can of course skip any parts of the Challenge you find objectionable or inadvisable.--Filll (talk) 14:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Off-beat request

Hello! I wanted to know if I could make a somewhat strange request of you. Since I respect your online work and your offline profession, I feel I can speak freely with you.

I’ve recently begun to ratchet up my editorial involvement in Wikipedia. I’ve been creating articles, editing articles, marking articles for speedy deletion and AfD consideration and participating in AfD debates. I was also adopted by someone who’s been very helpful in helping me through the Wikipedia process.

On the surface, that seems great. But I was on your User Page and I saw these principles that you espouse:

1. In content discussions, never comment on another editor's behavior or character, only the content. 2. Humbly state your well-sourced opinion, but don't force the issue. 3. If consensus is against you, find something else to write about. 4. Be civil, friendly, and have fun editing.

I can state, regretfully, that I sort of missed the mark on all of those principles (you can easily find the links via my History page!). And I am not happy for that. In one case, I made an effort to apologize with someone whom I may have offended, and we are now working together harmoniously. With other users, I’ve tried to be pleasant and left complimentary messages on their Talk Pages, hoping I could plant good seeds. However, I do feel guilty that some of my editing may have been disruptive. As I see it, I need to cool off and learn to assume good faith.

And this is my request of you as an Administrator: Is it possible for you to Block me for a period of anywhere from 24 to 72 hours, as a preventive measure for me to stop, cool down and refocus? As I understand Blocking Policy, it can be done for “either removing, or encouraging change in, a source of disruption.” I know Self-Blocking requests are usually not accepted (the policy doesn’t specifically state they are prohibited) and I know there’s a program for a self-administered WikiBreak, but I don’t see that as being effective. If I knew that someone I can respect is putting me in a corner for a defined period, I feel that I can chill out properly and then return to be a more productive and less combative personality.

I hope this request isn’t too strange, and I sincerely apologize if you find it inappropriate. But since you went out of your way to assure me on my missteps in the DRV process, I thought I could come to you with this request. A 24-72 hour Block (your call on the time) would be therapeutic for me. If that’s something you can do, I would appreciate that immensely. Many thanks, and God bless you! Ecoleetage (talk) 02:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProjects Saints

Sorry to bother again, but how does one join WikiProject Saints? Unless I am mistaken, it’s not clear on the page how someone who wishes to get involved can join up. I have an interest in the history of religions and I would like to participate in this WikiProject.

Also, I hope my earlier request wasn’t too loopy. If you are able to accommodate me, I would request one change: from the previously requested 24 hour minimum/72 hour maximum block to a new request for a 72 hour minimum/one week maximum block for self-confessed disruptive and inelegant behavior. I’ve been trying to make amends – I created two new articles today and participated in several AfD discussions – but I know I need to strive for better. I appreciate your listening to me. Thanks! Ecoleetage (talk) 17:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Thank you for pointing out the way to the Saints. I just signed up and hope to be part of the project.

As for my other request, I reviewed the Wikipedia policy and it states “Blocks are intended to reduce the likelihood of future problems, by either removing, or encouraging change in, a source of disruption.” Well, I need to be encouraged. The policy states that requests for self-blocks are “typically” refused – which means there is possibility that it can be done. If you want evidence of where I erred badly: [4] [5] (hostile language) and [6] (improper use of vandal warning). I did apologize to the user in question, but I am still unhappy with my actions. Like I said earlier, I think I would benefit if you could keep me off for anywhere from 72 hours for a week. When I come back, then I know I have work harder to be a better editor. I sincerely hope you can accommodate this request. Thank you and God bless! Ecoleetage (talk) 18:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I hope you think in favor of it. Thanks again! Ecoleetage (talk) 18:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I like the idea of working in the WP:BACKLOG as penance - I would be happy to do that. Thanks for listening. Ecoleetage (talk) 20:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Pune Pharma

I can see your point. It's still a little spammy to me, but there is some new content. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

AfD Worthy?

Hey, sorry to bother again, but I have a new question. There's an article on Wikipedia that I believe should be up for an AfD nomination. However, I know the guy who is the subject of the article and I don't want to incur a COI problem by nominating it. Please take a look at [[7]] and let me know if you think the article should be up for an AfD. I can't improve on it because I cannot locate any independent sources. Everything I can find online on the subject was strictly self-promotional. It bothers me, since I've seen some articles with independent and notable sources deleted, but stuff like this remains online. Thanks. Ecoleetage (talk) 20:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Update, Input, AfD, Question

I hope I am not wearing out my welcome, but I had three things I wanted to share.

  • I followed your advice regarding work on the WP:Backlog and I am actually enjoying it. It's hardly penance -- I feel great contributing to the maintenance of the site.
  • If you get a chance, can you please review a request I made at [[8]]. I am trying to get a benign and well-respected media industry web site removed from the WP Blacklist. I have no clue why it is there. (Post-script: I found out after posting this question.)
  • You can delete the AfD question I asked on 24 April -- that's been taken care of.
  • Procedural question about the WikiBreak Enforcer you mentioned earlier. Instead of a block, can a User request an Administrator to set that on the User's monobook.js page for him to take a WikiBreak? I thought it would be a compromise for my aforementioned case -- having someone tell me to take "x" number of days off rather than doing it myself.

Thanks again for being a great guy! Ecoleetage (talk) 12:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Heads up, I made my first editorial contribution to a saints-related article: Little Saint Hugh of Lincoln More to follow... Ecoleetage (talk) 20:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you! I am now adding links to the article Moses the Black and, earlier, I created this new article Christ Church Riverdale. Hey, I might as well get busy. Ecoleetage (talk) 20:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
This isn't related to the Saints project, but I thought it was genuinely amusing and worth sharing: [9]. Be well and keep up the good work! Ecoleetage (talk) 16:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


I appreciate your kind input on my Talk Page. You may want to address your question directly to Keeper76, rather than leave word on my page (I don't think he'll be back there for a while). Separate from that, I'd like to pursue an expansion of the article on Pontius Pilate's wife for the Saints project -- this may take a while (I already began some very minor polishing), but be aware it will soon be Claudia's turn to shine! Thanks! Ecoleetage (talk) 19:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


Heads up: This doesn't fall into the Saints project, but I thought you'd like to see it. I'd appreciate your feedback on it, too: [[10]]. The article was deleted last year due to a perceived lack of notability (which I don't understand, given the group's history). Thanks! Ecoleetage (talk) 16:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

74.223.63.66 (talk · contribs)

I don't recall any interaction with this IP user, nor do I see any comments of mine on his/her talk page. I'm only a little confused. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 15:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

G'day, just FYI; [11]. Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 09:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

AfD votes

Hi there! I sincerely hope you don't take offense on my advocacy of Man Without a Gun, but I didn't feel the AfD nomination was justified for reasons that I cited in the article's defense. However, I will take your advice to tone down my input on future votes. (By the way, I never heard back on my earlier inquiry about whether it was possible for an Admin to set a User's monobook.js for the WikiBreak Enforcer procedure - the way around the self-imposed block). Thanks! Ecoleetage (talk) 16:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Communicating by Net often creates problems, and I didn't want to give the impression of being rude (especially to someone I respect). On the monobook.js, I believe Admins can set/reset a User's monobook.js page if the User makes a boo-boo and cannot get back into it. If you were adventurous and wanted to experiment, you are free to use my monobook.js page to test your skills -- I'm game for giving it a go. Ecoleetage (talk) 16:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Christianity

Hi. Are you aware that you self-reverted your contribution to the Sin discussion? I thought I'd let you know in case you did that by accident. SP-KP (talk) 23:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Jinnah and Bhutto

Hi Pastor David. Thanks for giving your opinion on the Pakistan articles. But I thought it was solved with User:Smsarmad until the Special:Contributions/81.149.22.123, who first vandalized the articles two weeks ago and changed the denomination, did so again just after it was agreed that the politicians in question are Shi'a Muslims, and that no one should remove or change it. Days ago I suspected that the anon was in fact User:Smsarmad because of many similarities in the edits, and after warning him, I reported him on the noticeboard. Probably because of deeply-rooted sectarian fanaticism, User:Smsarmad doesn't want to give up. The issue has been discussed too many times and I hope User:Smsarmad can be blocked, once and for all, because I'm really getting tired of this and I'm spending too much time preventing him infecting these articles with his hateful fanaticism. The anon account should also be blocked. I hope you can help. Thanks. LahoreKid (talk) 22:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Dave Zirin Revert War

Thanks for taking notice of this problem. The editor I am warring with refuses to discuss the issue, claiming his unverified, first-hand knowledge is sufficient to justify changes. My argument is, if a living person said "I never said X" and there is no record of living person saying X, we should not, in the article, say living person said X. My talk page makes both sides clear -- any suggestions on how to proceed? Editor437 (talk) 16:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Highwinds Network Group

It's kind of you to say so. I wish I felt able to improve it instead of knocking it down, but I really suspect there's nothing with which to build it up. Anyway, I think we would have got to XfD eventually. And while I'm cluttering your page, thanks for all your efforts on Daynal/Rldavisiv. Bit of a mess, that one. --AndrewHowse (talk) 19:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Christianity

You are cordially invited to participate in WikiProject Christianity

The goal of WikiProject Christianity is to improve the quality and quantity of information about Christianity available on Wikipedia. WP:X as a group does not prefer any particular tradition or denominination of Christianity, but prefers that all Christian traditions are fairly and accurately represented.

I think you might be interested. Please join the project if so. -- ₮inucherian (Talk) - 02:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


Saving Mrs. Pilate

Say, you can please check the article on Pontius Pilate's wife? As promised, I expanded it. I have to brush up the reference texts and the image needs fixing (some coding I can't quite figure out). But I kept my word that I would help brush it up -- or at least I hope I brushed it up (rather than muck it up). Thanks! Ecoleetage (talk) 19:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clean-up - I added a new reference regarding Claudia's lineage. How did you fix the photo for the page? Also, I think changing the article's name is fine -- there's nothing worse than being without an identity. However, I wish that guy who commented on the Talk page showed a bit more respect -- he was very insulting. Again, I appreciate your support and interest. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
You may want to keep an eye on this page -- that Francis guy reverted your reversion of his reversion to my editing (say that five times fast!). Thanks. Ecoleetage (talk) 23:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Please be aware that this Francis Schonken guy is still making disruptive edits to the Claudia Procula article. I undid his latest attempt to disfigure the article, and I would ask that you please make it very clear to him that his edits are improper. Thanks. Ecoleetage (talk) 09:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your input and editing on the Mrs. P. article. I wish other folks were as tactful as you are in describing why you are doing what you are doing. Oh, and on the topic of Biblical apocyrpha, you may be interested in this work-in-progress: Lilith (opera). Be well. Ecoleetage (talk) 20:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I am sorry to bother you again, but this Francis guy is STILL deleting the properly referenced text to suit his needs. I've left two warning on his page, but it doesn't seem to be sinking in. Your help and guidance is greatly appreciated. Thanks! Ecoleetage (talk) 14:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I have reported this Francis guy for violating the 3RR; [[12]] (scroll to bottom of page). Ecoleetage (talk) 14:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pastordavid/Archive_4&oldid=1242863950"