User talk:Pastordavid

Welcome to my talk page!

This page is occassionally archived. If a conversation we were having is archived, please continue it in a new section on this page.

Wikipedia is not censored, but my talk page is. Obsenity, whether vandalism or not, will be deleted.

---

WP tagging

I noticed you have done some tagging for WP Saints. You propably have already covered all the relevant articles, but if not would you consider adding {{WikiProject Germany}} to the German based saints that we have missed out when you come accross them. Thanks. Agathoclea 23:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Martin Luther

Sorry for showing some aggrevation regarding the subject. There weather wasn't very good last week, and I guess my temper wasn't any better. I have contacted User:Keesiewonder regarding the subject, and believe that party may come to agree, particularly considering the comparatively neutral statement she made. Otherwise, we don't actually need to have the banner there to be able to work to improve the article as we have the resources and opportunity to do so. And, yes, I realize improving the article does not mean necessarily putting in an individual reference to every calendar in which an individual is commemorated. The only party I see who acted less than civilly was the first time poster Keesiewonder pointed out, and I know that such single-use personalities are impossible to eliminate. Thank you for the blanket apology, but I didn't take particularly serious objection in the first instance. Like I said, unfortunately, the weather sucked last week and appartnetly my own manners weren't doing much better. John Carter 15:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Albrecht Dürer

When was he canonized then? Johnbod 21:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

see my reply on Talk:Albrecht Dürer. -- Pastordavid 21:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Kokkadichcholai_massacre

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

Please responsd when you have time. Thanks [1]RaveenS 20:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

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

Thanks

Thanks for your guidance on the honorifics question. Cheers! PeterHuntington 18:49, 28 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)

Image source for Image:Maximus Confessor.jpg

Hi Pastordavid

Would you mind adding a source for where you found this image? Unless we have an exact source, other editors will have a very hard time verifying if this is an ancient image or a modern version. Happy editing. Valentinian ^{T / C} 22:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. The sources you gave me are quite nice so they could simply be added to the image description page (see e.g. the description of Image:Kristian IV av Danmark, malning av Pieter Isaacsz 1611-1616.jpg for an example of how it is normally done). The reason why I contacted you is that I noticed the English lettering on the left side of the image. This would indicate to me that this is a modern version of an ancient icon, but unless the artist drawing this exact icon died more than 70 years ago, this particular image will not be Public Domain. Please forgive the expression, but even if the painter died the moment after finishing this icon, this event would still have to have taken place no later than 1936 for this image to be Public Domain. Do you know if bilingual icons were painted already then, or the name of the artist behind this work? Otherwise, I'm afraid we will have to look for an older image. Regards. Valentinian ^{T / C} 23:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. This situation is somewhat tricky, but let's assume that the Australian Catholic University knows what it is doing. I've tried to add a copyright tag to the description page to cover this situation. The Italian image you mentioned would not have been the best candidate for a replacement. Your translation is correct, but "Wikipedia only" images are currently being replaced, so I would not advice using that image. Unfortunately, neither the German, French, Spanish or Polish Wikipedias have any image at all. Since neither of these allow any form of images with the least potential copyright issues, they are normally good places to start when looking for Public Domain or GFDL images. A good rule of thumb is to look for images that are either dated before c. 1900-1910 or images that were published in the United States before 1923. Such images will normally be free of copyright issues. Btw, I just noticed that you are interested in Danish topics. My knowledge about theology is very limited (Danish or otherwise), but if you encounter something written in Danish that needs translating, or if you lack a piece of biographical information or similar, feel free to let me know and I'll try to be of assistance. Regards. Valentinian ^{T / C} 00:24, 4 March 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)

Re: Ezekiel

I did check out other books in the Bible before I made the decision, none of which have a Saints infobox. (For example, Isaiah: you would think that since Ezekiel has one, Isaiah would as well.) I suppose anyone can revert my decision, but I maintain that it stands logically. I'll bring it up with Carter anyway. Thanks for the heads up. Alekjds ^talk 22:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Move of Macrina articles

Hello, I've moved the Macrina articles as proposed by you, but you may also want to know that moving onto a simple redirect without edit history and talk page does not require an administrator. --Tikiwont 15:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: FAC Maximus the Confessor

I've added new comments on the nomination page in response to your additions. For what it's worth, I think you have a fine article going there, and if you adress the concerns I raised, I'll gladly support it, but it may not go so well for you on this nomination. Thanatosimii 21:06, 7 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)

Thanks Pastordavid, please see my note to you on my Talk page... I think you did a great job... sort of Solomon-like :-) 76.166.123.129 04:37, 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)

Hildegard

"Top" priority in Bio is limited to 200 people, which it is doubtful would include Hildegard. However, in my changing her to "Top" under the Saints project, I did so because the guidelines state (for Top level): "Subject is a 'core' or 'key' topic for Saints, or is generally notable to people other than students of Saints." (emphasis added) By these criteria, Hildegard of Bingen cleary falls under the "Top" category in the Saints project. Outside of Hagiography, she is much better known, for example, than Anthony of Padua or Columba. The Jade Knight 23:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Hildegard Infobox

That seems like more than a fair enough compromise to me. I wouldn't understand if Mak didn't settle for it. Well done. Alekjds ^talk 00:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Featured article

I've seen elsewhere that having one featured article is an almost required step to becoming an admin. Congratulations on Maximus the Confessor, and my sincere hope that you don't stop here. We've got a lot of work for you yet to do, future admin or not. I'm still working on all the Wikipedia:WikiProject Saints/Missing articles, and many/most of them would probably benefit from your expert input. John Carter 16:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind remarks! I'm happy the article reached FA status as it deserved. I'm more happy, because Wikiproject Greece is enriched with one more FA. As a matter of fact, I spend most of my time in the English WP and not in the Greek one (though I should - Greek wiki needs our experience). So, if you ever need my input or feedback, do not hesitate to ask. I think that, in certain cases, my Greek library of religious books could be helpful.--Yannismarou 20:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Kudos for the FA! :-) --Michalis Famelis (talk) 20:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations! Keep up the good work. Majoreditor 02:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

747 Argument

Hi Pastordavid. Re your 747 vote, you might want to know that I am a strong theist (and run [www.polkighorne.org 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)