User talk:Virgil Vaduva

Welcome!

Hello, Virgil Vaduva, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

By the way, please be sure to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name.

I've noticed that you have made several edits regarding the Christian faith, and that's great! We have a committed and diverse group of editors in our community with similar interests! Please feel free to ask us questions and interact with us on the various talk pages for Christian topics; we'd love to have you working with us!

If you have any questions, you can post to the help desk or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Merry Christmas. -- KHM03 03:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: KHM03

Thanks KHM03! I've been running Wikimedia for a while on The Open Bible Project and I am trying to participate here whenever I have the time. I am particularly interested in the Preterism page which seems to have been taken over by anti-Preterist folk, which is quite disturbing.

Nonetheless, I will try to put more time into Wikipedia, and thanks for the warm welcome. Hope to run into you again soon. :)

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

--Virgil Vaduva 19:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your VandalProof Application

Dear Virgil Vaduva,

Thank you for applying for VandalProof! (VP). As you may know, VP is a very powerful program, and in fact with the new 1.2 version release it has even more power. As such we must uphold strict protocols before approving a new applicant. Regretfully, I have chosen to decline your application at this time. The reason for this is that that you don't have enough mainspace edits. Please note it is nothing personal by any means, and we certainly welcome you to apply again in the not too distant future. Thank you for your interest in VandalProof. —Xyra e l _{/ 17:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)}[reply]

McLaren Article

Virgil, I hope you don't mistake my revert for malice. I do have some credentials regarding English usage and postmodern Christianity. I think that given enough time, we can produce something worthy of Wikipedia. I believe the article has potential and I look forward to working with you on making it even better!Will3935 01:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a breath, grab a frosty beverage and come back to the article then. I understand we can all get frustrated, but getting heated won't help anyone in the situation. Vassyana 19:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am disappointed that even after agreeing to a cool down, that you continued to sling mud in this dispute. I understand you both got heated over this article, but I would have rather seen you both walk away and come back to this later with cool heads. Repeatedly commenting on the editor, instead of the content, is not helpful or constructive. Escalating the conflict by posting a counterclaim on WP:ANI is particularly what disturbed me. I have expressed disappointment to Will as well. Also, being forthright, I have added my own report (reluctantly) to ANI regading your potential use of meatpuppets/sockpuppets. I sincerely hope we can forge forward from this point and bury the acrimony between you and Will, which is counterproductive and making a viciously poisonous atmosphere at the McLaren article. Vassyana 06:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Demolish?

Calm down man. Lets take a breath and be friends. Obviously you know that I don't think my edits were intended to "demolish" the article. I understand your sense of ownership over the article and I will try to respect your longevity on it. I do believe that counts for something and I realize that I am new to the discussion over this article. I will try to be more sensetive and offer my edits more gradually. Perhaps you can be sensitive to my feelings as well. I am an old fogey who has been through a lot of things but I still sometimes get my little feelings hurt. I want to construct something good out of the start you have made. I will not demolish anything but misinformation, duplicity, and poor writing if I find such. If not, I only have to concern myself with construction!Will3935 04:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Virgil, perhaps it is a good idea that we get administrator help. Sorry if my tone was a little harsh. I was having a very bad diabetic episode and should have known better than to respond at that time. I still look forward to working with you. We have lots of time to produce a good article.Will3935 04:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

God bless you Virgil! I'll get spell check. Thanks for pointing out my typo. None of us are beyond correction. That's why we need the whole Wikipedia community. Let me know when we can stop fighting. I don't like it. I'll just keep working on the article. We can discuss edits one at a time my brother!Will3935 05:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. sounds like you think very poorly of me. Maybe my cat is wrong after all. Pray for me that I grow in Christ so I wont be so bad as you say (and remember my diabetes when you do). I'll pray for your physical problems too my brother. By the way, it's just an article.Will3935 05:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked for an admin to give us a third opinion. This is not an accusation against you. It is just a recognition that we need someone objective to assess the situation. Then we can colloborate and collaborate!Will3935 05:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've also made a proposal on the McLaren discussion page. It's only a proposal. See if you like it.Will3935 08:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The admin with the third opinion recommended paring down the critical references section due to concerns of undue weight. Since I have read these critical sources and am familiar with the prominence of given scholars I will take the liberty of making the list shorter. I intend to delete the Colson entry, not because he is not prominent, but because it does not have much significant content. Tell me what you think of my deletions and if they are sufficient. We can always delete more if you like.Will3935 13:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For your convenience I have pasted here my response to your comment on my userpage:

I don't disagree with you on matters of substance. See the article's discussion page where I think I adequately document this. You are upset for no reason. As to your counter complaint I think such a thing may be healthy as community oversight will help me to maintain civility. I pasted some good, substantial content on the article's userpage for us to discuss. Maybe we can just focus on "colloboration" and admins will be delighted to see we are making progress. Have a good night.Will3935 03:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about admins. If we conduct ourselves according to policy they will just observe and make recommendations on how we can further the article. By the way I think Frank and I may be on the verge of a breakthrough on the homosexuality controversy. Seems he and I see eye to eye regarding McLaren's views on this. It may take time to hammer everything out in detail but we are making progress.Will3935 03:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and tell me what you think regarding my idea to put the whole McLaren quote (regarding homosexuality) in the article. It's not too long. Anyway, I have talked about it on the discussion page and would like to get your feedback.Will3935 04:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At least we got a protect on the page for now. That should lead to peace. I apologize for my behavior that stirred you up. Maybe we can have a fresh new start. I think you will like the comments I have made on the discussion page. I also agree with you about the Driscoll quote. It does not belong. You are quite right. Blessings.Will3935 06:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would not be surprised if we ended up being good friends, Virgil. Things work that way sometimes. One thing though, I find I have thicker skin than I thought I did! Who knew? Also, Moshe sent an apologetic retraction to me about his comments at WP:ANI (I knew nothing about this entity before another admin, [you know who I mean, but I don't want to get her in any trouble] suggested I go there. Oh well, live and learn. I wish I lived near Akron. I would take you out to eat (fairly modest -- I'm kinda poor). I think we would see that neither of us is completely evil. Anyway, I'm going to paste Moshe's comments here (but you can also find a retraction at WP:ANI). Yes, this is completely self-serving to rescue my bruised ego:

I am so sorry, but your username was very similar to another user (User:Will314159). I really feel like a jerk. Please forgive me. I'll write about my mistake on the AN/I right away. I now realize that you have nothing to do with the other Will, the topics that you guys edit are so radically different that even two seconds of investigation on my part would have made me realize my mistake. Again, I'm sorry.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a nice guy. That other Will must really be a jerk! I know I should not have used my medical problems as an excuse for my ungodly, shameful behavior, but I would still ask you to pray for me. It is late where I am (don't you wish you knew where -- kidding) and my wife is sleeping. I feel quite discouraged over several health problems besides the diabetes. Please pray for me. I don't know much about your medical condition (Dent's?) but I have been praying for you. This is how I believe God would have it. Again, please forgive me for all of my foolishness. I don't want to be such a jerk, it just kinda happens.Will3935 07:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet use

I just blocked User:Frank Thomas as a probable sock or meatpuppet of your account. Please do not use sock or meatpuppets. Per the discussion here, it is pretty obvious that you 2 are either the same user or Frank is a friend or colleague of yours. Both of those situations are not permissible under our policies. For now, I am not going to block you. I am just going to warn you against doing this in the future. If your position is strong enough, you do not need to recruit other users into the discussion. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 11:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what a meatpuppet is, but Frank is my friend and it is true that he often shares my views and works on similar articles. I did ask for his support here. At the same time, I am not sure why you would find it necessary to block his account. I hope you will reconsider. I am sure you guys have logs and whatnot to figure out who he is. --Virgil Vaduva 13:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:SOCK

"A related issue occurs when multiple individuals create brand new accounts specifically to participate in, or influence, a particular vote or area of discussion. This is common in deletion discussions or controversial articles. These newly created accounts, or anonymous edits, may be friends of another editor, may be related in some way to the subject of an article under discussion, or may have been solicited by someone to support a specific angle in a debate. Wikipedians also call such user accounts single-purpose accounts, because whereas committed Wikipedians are usually active on a range of articles, and their aim is to see a balanced growth in articles and in the encyclopedia as a whole, single-purpose accounts come to Wikipedia with one agenda."

"These accounts are often described as "meatpuppets", a name perhaps inspired by the band of the same name. They are often difficult to distinguish from real sock puppets and are treated similarly. Neither a sock puppet nor a single-purpose account holder is regarded as a member of the Wikipedia community. The Arbitration Committee has ruled that, for the purpose of dispute resolution, when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sock puppets, or several users acting as meatpuppets, they may be treated as one individual."

From the way you described it, Frank is most definitely a meatpuppet.

As for Will3935, I will take a look at AN/I. I tend to be the type of admin who considers cases on their own merits. I don't compare users. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 15:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will3935

Actually it looks like he's apologized for breaking the truce period on Vassyana's talk page after being chastised by Vassyana. I'll put a NPA warning on his talk page. And please be careful with personal attacks yourself. As I will tell Will, it's a tough lesson to learn (it took me awhile myself) but sometimes you gotta go do something else for awhile. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 15:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will Here

I have proposed on the discussion talk page that once the block is removed I will revert my last edit which I contributed during the time you and Vassanya had agreed to a cooling off period. My ignorance of this period was unfortunate indeed and resulted in our not playing by the same rules. Thus, I think the edit should be reverted if you have no objections. I think we are so close on content issues that I care little for any substantial change. Regarding McLaren's epistemology I do think some reference should be made to his postfoundationalism since he frequently alludes to this. If you disagree I will defer to your preference although I think it will be a weak spot in the article. I have said a few times already that you were entirely right about the Driscoll quote. I think we are so close on content issues that they are not of any real significance to me. Certainly any differences we have are so trivial in my eyes that I feel no desire to rock the boat. I do think we can improve structure or organization. I would not think it right for this to go forward without your input, however, since you have thought so much about the article. I think a little sprucing up and the article can obtain a higher rating and I will go away. I love you in Christ.Will3935 00:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About Dave

I coudn't help but notice how willing Dave seemed to get his account blocked. The one he has been using has a final warning concerning spamming at the top. This makes me suspect he either already has or will develop other accounts for this purpose. I think it is fair to surmise that any newly developed account (or any whose edit history looks suspiciously like his) that links the article is Dave himself and that the link should for that reason be deleted. Just from glancing at the article (nice picture, Virgil) it appears Dave is on some kind of personal vendetta. I will help to watch out for this in the future.Will3935 17:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is irrelevant to the bottom line in this case but I don't think Dave's article violated any policies against deep links. My understanding (which may be flawed) of deep links is that these are links within links. I do not believe an article whose text is found within the bounds of a given website is a deep link (or all articles could be considered such -- even Wikipedia articles). Still, Dave's persistence in linking his article is inappropriate. I'll do some more reading on the deep links issue. I could be wrong.Will3935 17:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just deleted an unsourced pov edit that was critical of McLaren. There was some truth to the edit's contents (regarding Evangelical assessment of McLaren) but it was unsourced and worded from a biased pov. Furthermore, it was the anonymous editor's first edit. I let a link stand from a new editor since it was an interview with McLaren and thus a primary source material. Interestingly though, that editor proceded from the McLaren article to vandalize an unrelated one!Will3935 17:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hurry Back

I have asked Wjhonson to stop in from time to time. We have this new, anonymous editor barging in like a bull in a china shop (sorta like I did I guess) at the worst possible time. He/she seems problematic in many ways. I will try to work with him / her and slow them down. Perhaps we can work on the "controversy" section. Anyway, the article will still be here when you have time and you will have a chance to weigh in on any changes you dislike. I'll do the best I can in the meantime with this "new" (maybe old Dave?) editor. I'm going to have a little difficulty dedicating much time to Wikipedia just now as well but I'll do what I can.Will3935 21:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gump and Virgil Vaduva on Rob Bell

Hi, I've been asked to look into this. On examination it seems to me that you two guys have a content dispute that you're failing to handle properly. Instead of discussing the appropriateness of a disputed section, you're engaging in edit warring, which is very destructive and will result in both of you being blocked. I won't hesitate to recommend this action if you don't both stop in short order.

Please, both of you, this is the time to show your respect for yourselves, for one another and above all for all of your fellow Wikipedians, by seriously and civilly, if not amicably, discussing the issue on the talk page of the article. I have no doubt that you can do this if you try. Please don't let me down. --Tony Sidaway 18:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cisco Clean Access

I was following up on your reference for the section about windows scripting vulnerability for the cisco clean access agent, and the best I could find was http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/ps6128/prod_release_note09186a008085b16f.html#wp258624 which seems to talk more about the network hardware than the user agent. I just did a test where I disabled scripts on my windows machine, using symantec's noscript.exe application, and CCAA 4.1.2.0 was unaffected. What I'm really interested in here is finding a way to get around the (*#*#&#*#$($&*_(#*-ing authentication checks, which drive me crazy. It's possible I'll be running a lot of linux in the near future. Squigish 09:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CISSP article

There's an edit war happening on CISSP to which you've contributed.

tdbf is insisting on inserting a POV tag meaning he feels the article is not neutral.

I believe the article is neutral. I do think that it can be improved but as it stands the problem with the article is not that it's POV.

Would you please leave your thoughts on the matter on the article's talk page?

Thanks Vincent 16:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed (regarding qualifiers for the "guaranteed pass" criticism in the CISSP article, off the top of my head: "Results 1 - 10 of about 5,520 for CISSP +"guaranteed pass". (0.28 seconds)" I'm not going to go through all of them obviously, but there's definitely a few people using the term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seifried (talk • contribs) 07:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

December 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, we remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Talk:CISSP. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Virgil, I will not abide being accused of "failing exams" or being "bitter" about my career. Please stop disparaging my professional status in public on Wikipedia talk pages.

--- tqbf 21:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for stopping by and decorating me with a nice colorful tag...have a wonderful day and career! :) --Virgil Vaduva (talk) 01:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I likewise wish you good fortune at your secops job in Dayton, Virgil. You can, if you'd like, look me up at LinkedIn as well, or for that matter in the press, and consider how well casting aspersions on other people's careers reflects on you. I'm sure, like most professionals, you really don't need to throw cash at a sleazy third-party to prove your competence, and that you're plenty smart without the piece of paper. But then, that's the nature of our disagreement. Happy editing! --- tqbf 01:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I don't think that's the nature of our disagreement at all. I mostly dislike your attitude and the way you disregard other opinions, and the way you arrogantly treat other people...like posting a welcome tag on my talk page as if I am some newbie around here...I think that's the nature of the disagreement. If you would rethink the way you interact, I think the nature of the disagreement would be quite different. --Virgil Vaduva (talk) 01:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you feel that way. You obviously feel like I'm not qualified to write about the CISSP, having failed its vaunted tests. That's unfortunate, and probably got us off to a bad start. Despite your misapprehensions about the superiority of your credentials, I'd love to find a way to work with you in the future. Maybe you can help scrub vendor crap off the NAC article, and add more background material? Perhaps that's a less adversarial place for us to work together, and stop the hatin'. --- tqbf 02:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never claimed I was superior in any way; I simply made an observation about your attitude. If you don't think it needs work, then so be it. Also I never said you are not qualified, after all I don't know anything about your qualifications so it all goes back to attitude and the observations several people made about you being antagonistic. I agree with them and I still suspect there is something behind your involvement in the CISSP article, perhaps related your impression that ISC2 is a sleazy organization. I am willing to work with you on any article, not just NAC, but this is a two way street. --Virgil Vaduva (talk) 02:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You made the mistake of presuming that my POV regarding the CISSP cert was based on not being able to obtain it. I made the mistake of taking the bait and letting that be an issue. Perhaps we can just wash our hands of the disagreement and move on? Really, Virgil, if the CISSP article reflected my POV, the word "scam" would be in the lede. I have no illusions that the article is going to reflect my POV. But please, acclimate yourself to the idea that content in that article is going to be challenged and reworded. --- tqbf 02:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I'd be the first to agree that some people who are good exam takers may only know the exam material and not have any experience. But the point of the article is not to discuss those people. It's an article to describe what the CISSP is. For every guy like you there is the guy like me who knows that ISC2 is a good non-profit organization and dedicated to promoting information security to the ignorant masses. I have no problem with content being challenged...this is not my first wiki edit. I do have a problem with the way you are approaching edits, like I already said. --Virgil Vaduva (talk) 02:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CISSP edits

I don't see a problem with either side. Some of tdbq's edits improve the article, some don't. Either way, the improvements aren't dramatically good, and the other edits aren't dramatically bad. It's mid-grade article that informs well enough, and really doesn't warrant much more effort. Vincent (talk) 15:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Bell

Looks like the Trivia section got put back into the Rob Bell article. GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal differences

It's obvious that you and Roderick E have some personal differences. But please try not to bring other editors in on it as you both have done in Preterism. Wikipedia is not the place to point out faults of others. If you disagree on the content of an article, it's fine to discuss that in the Talk page in an objective and positive manner that deals with facts about the article in question. If you continue to have an issue with another editor, take a look at the Dispute Resolution page to see how to handle it. I will also be posting this on Roderick E's Talk page. Thank you - Charleca (talk) 20:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I am not sure why you are directing this at me, I will readily admit that personal stuff needs to stay off Wikipedia and out from editors' exchanges, so I appreciate your correction and advisement. Preterism, but its nature can become a battleground for edits, but even if that happens, it should remain just that: a discussion on editing and the merits of the article, not a personal exchange. Again, thanks for the message; I will do my best to continue to keep the exchange civil, where it should be. --Virgil Vaduva (talk) 20:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reynolds

Thanks for rewriting the article...it was lacking more recent information. JenWSU (talk) 21:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Springfield Presbetery

I have left you a comment at Talk:Springfield Presbytery. John Park (talk) 02:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:EarlyReynolds.png

Thanks for uploading File:EarlyReynolds.png. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 07:30, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Vvaduva robbell1.jpg

The file File:Vvaduva robbell1.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]