User talk:Pastordavid

The current WikiProject Lutheranism Collaboration article is Lucas Cranach the Elder.

Help us improve the information about Lutheranism on Wikipedia.
CAST YOUR VOTE for the next collaboration

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.

---

Saint

It's an excellent start for that section, I think. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the welcome/ I sugested som,ething similar to CTS a while back...It's good to see something's finally being done. Passing around a few banners.... Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 20:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The vandal on my userpage

Hi Pastordavid

10 points to you for your comment on my talk page. If you haven't seen it already, I reported him to WP:AN/I and El C has sent the account into the next world. Happy editing. Valentinian ^{T / C} 21:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

You're probably right. Btw, congratulations with your FA on Saint Maximus. Valentinian ^{T / C} 21:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Knights Templar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Qxz

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

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

dispute

Comment removed for the time being (thanks for understanding)

Sophia 22:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

thank you!

Thank you for offering to help! I am looking for someone who will be very, very, very patient with me. I don't know if you are very, very. very patient or not- if not you might want to escape now. Zantaggerung 14:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry. I honestly thought some of them didn't get the subject. This is why I need a mentor. I didn't know that I was always supposed to paste at the bottom of a discussion. Zantaggerung 15:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

John Chrysostom: GA on Hold

John Chrysostom is on hold pending minor issues -- see reviewer Bozhinov's comments. I've added some thoughts of my own on the talk page on how we can address most of the issues. Please let me know what you think. Thanks. Majoreditor 14:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Glad to see that the article passed GA review. Congratulations and thanks for the wonderful work. Majoreditor 20:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Nicholas Beale

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

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

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

Removal of Denominations from Category Lutheran denominations

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

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

Categorization

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

________________________________________________________________________________________

Erkembode in French: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erkembode KIND REGARDS A.Leroux, traducteur@traducteur.eu

Template

Hi Pastordavid.

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

Best, Fred-Chess 16:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

(Barnstar moved to Userpage - Thanks so much)

Historic church (ID)

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

Doright

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

Thank you - LGAT 3rd opinion

Your input is appreciated. I am fairly new to wiki, and the challenge in this first series of articles has left me drained. I'm not sure where to turn. She knows the rules so much better than I do and uses them very adeptly. Like the crafting of her third-party request, asking if it was legitimate to use reputable sources in an article lead (which was not the real issue, but the question was designed to get the reply she wanted). Anyway, I'm tired and frustrated and ranting. Thanks for your input. Lsi john 22:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Collaborations

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

Gregory of Nazianzus

I've been working slowly but steadily on Gregory of Nazianzus, hoping to have it up to GA status in a few weeks. Would you be interested in looking at it, particularly the sections on his theological teachings, and provide feedback? Thanks. Majoreditor 03:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you in advance for any assistance you can provide. I will look at Justification (theology). Majoreditor 18:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Once again, thanks for your contributions. I will work on the article this weekend and will try to have ready for review by next weekend. Majoreditor 03:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

CSD G12 tags on OrthodoxWiki copies

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

Apologies

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

turnaround

check out some of my edits i think that i have done a great job on edits and have done a complete turnaround.Mstare88 01:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

sorry

sorry about that i ment to put it on another persons talk page. sorry about the mix up.Mstare88 15:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

User subpage concerns

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

Template:ChristianityWikiProject

Hi Pastordavid. I saw your name in the recent edit history of the banner we use for talk pages in WP Christianity. I was wondering if you could help me out with some edits? I don't really understand the code at all, so I need someone to either do the work, or tell me how. I'm hoping to add the following things to the banner:

• It needs to graphically display and create/populate categories for:
  • Unreferenced Christianity Articles.
  • Christianity Articles needing Copy-editing.
  • Christianity Articles needing Expansion.
  • Christianity Articles needing NPOV work.
• Needs to have a graphic to show the importance of the article (currently only shows the class).

I hope what I just said makes sense. It does in my head, and I wish I could just learn the stuff quick so I could make this happen. Anyway, lemme know if you'd be willing to help out with this.

After changes get made (whether by you, me, or someone else I find ot help), I'm hoping to improve the section on usage just below the template on the template's page. I don't think most users know how to properly use the template. Thanks for your time! Nswinton 14:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)