Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:56, 8 April 2008

I will respond on this page to comments, unless you ask that I respond on your talk page.

Welcome to the Wikipedia

Questions and comments

Joseph

Hi, You seem a bit exasperated over at Jesus. Sorry if my last edit had that effect. I thought my addition would be an improvement (and still think so). But I have no interest in edit warring over it, and still less interest in defying consensus. I just wanted to let you know that we are all on the same "team" here, trying to improve the article as much as possible. I have posted a message on the talk page of the article as well. Best regards, Silly rabbit (talk) 16:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree-- same team. I wanted to say with my undo "this is good, but other folks will object." At this point I am happy with anything that does not say "father" and am going on to other things.--Carlaude (talk) 16:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last changes

Thanks for letting me know. --Checco (talk) 16:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Secondtempleplan.jpg → Image:EzekielTemple

Regarding your recent request to WP:RM to perform the above move - images cannot be moved in this fashion. From WP:RM:

Images: To rename an image, upload the image again, but with the name you want. Then change the relevant links to reflect the new name and list the old image at images and media for deletion.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask. JPG-GR (talk) 22:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

typos

I think I kep misspelling your name in edit summaries; I am sorry for this! Slrubenstein | Talk

altering sourced text

You altered sourced information on the Jesus page. Don't do that. The point of sourced information is that it conforms to what the reliable source says, not to what you want it to say. If you want the page to say something different, find a reliable source that says it. Leadwind (talk) 05:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello Vanished user ewfisn2348tui2f8n2fio2utjfeoi210r39jf! Welcome to Wikiproject Christianity! Thank you for joining. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! - ~~~~

Getting Started
General • Task for You Wikiproject Talk Page • Templates
Useful Links
Project Category Christianity Portal
Miscellaneous
Featured Articles • Good Articles Did You Know? •

Work Groups
Anabaptist • Core Topics • Christianity in India Jesus • Syriac Christianity
Projects
Article Requests • Destubbing Campaign Assessment • Articles Needing Clean-up Peer Review • Adopted Topics
Similar WikiProjects
Anglicanism • Bible • Reformed Christianity Roman Catholicism • Lutheranism

- Tinucherian (talk) 10:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

category edits on orgs

Hi Carlaude -- I reverted two sets of category edits you've been making on Category:Organizations based in the United States. First, it appears you're depopulating Category:Organizations based in the United States by subject. Can you explain why you're doing that? Second, on some of the categories, you did other things that aren't helpful; for instance, on Category:Medical and health organizations based in the United States, you deleted Category:Medical and health organizations by country entirely. What's going on? --Lquilter (talk) 20:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Category:Organizations by country and subject‎" in an empty category except for the "Category:Organizations based in the United States by Subject" and "Category:Organizations based in the United States by Subject" is totally redundant with much larger an more used "Category:Organizations based in the United States" These category are not needed and WP will be better with out them.--Carlaude (talk) 21:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also reverted this edit on Category:Organizations by country and subject. The convention on categories like this one is to have both "by X and Y", and "by Y and X", and have them cross-listed. If you have some concerns about the structure, I suggest you talk about it on the specific category talk page first. If you are still concerned, then WP:CFD is the appropriate place for discussion of categories. In particular, the REDIRECT magic word that is appropriate for articles is rarely appropriate for categories; category redirects are done very differently. The organizations in particular have been difficult to get organized, and still need lots of work; however, it's unhelpful to have people working in different directions. Collaborative editing is particularly useful in category schemes. --Lquilter (talk) 20:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If "Category:Organizations based in the United States by Subject" is WP:fork with "Category:Organizations based in the United States" how is it better to have both?--Carlaude (talk) 21:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by a fork; that applies to contents of articles that are controversial. The "orgs based in the US by subject" is the beginnings of an effort to diffuse the category, along the lines of Category:Organizations more generally. This is normal categorizing practice. ... Since you're interested in working on the organization categories, and have opinions, it would be great to have your help on Wikipedia:WikiProject Organizations. Figuring out how to categorize organizations has been a long-term process, and it's still ongoing. ... Another thing that would be incredibly useful would be diffusing the contents of Category:Organizations based in the United States into the various subject-specific subcategories. --Lquilter (talk) 21:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please leave my comments together, as I posted them. Thanks. --Lquilter (talk) 21:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For a more fleshed-out example of a similar category tree, see Category:Companies by industry. That might help you better conceptualize the structure. --Lquilter (talk) 21:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No-- "A content fork is usually an unintentional creation of several separate articles all treating the same subject." It is not just a controversial topic. If you wan to diffuse the category (Category:Organizations based in the United States) you should work with that category , not make a new one.--Carlaude (talk) 23:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

February 2008

Hi, the recent edit you made to Jesus (disambiguation) has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Will ^(talk) 22:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus

For one, the article on "Jesus horse" doesn't exist. Secondly, Jesusaurus is a much more common term. Will ^(talk) 22:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That (Jesus Horse A satirical term for dinosaurs.) was someone elses edit. I did not see I was adding it back in.--Carlaude (talk) 23:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Church-directory-stub -- see {{Church-directory-dev}}

Hi - a stub template or category which you created has been nominated for deletion or renaming at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion. The stub type, which was not proposed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals, does not meet the standard requirements for a stub type, either through being incorrectly named, ambiguously scoped, or through failure to meet standards relating to the current stub hierarchy or likely size, as explained at Wikipedia:Stub. Please feel free to make any comments at WP:SFD regarding this stub type, and in future, please consider proposing new stub types first!

Please KeepI have proposed it have a better name for the category and template and reformated the {{tl:Church-directory-dev}} to reflect this format. I need the template with is explain that these are for church bodies or Christian denominations -- not church buldings as "Category:Lists of churches" is.--Carlaude (talk) 04:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

March 2008

Hi, the recent edit you made to Christian church directory of the United States has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN} ^{aka john lennon} 22:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How so?--Carlaude (talk) 23:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just stopping by after the related discussion on the current WP:CFD, and I noticed this comment. Most likely, this is a standard template warning triggered by a large content deletion. That sort of content deletion, particularly if not accompanied by an edit summary, is the sort of thing that editors often see from vandals, so someone probably just saw it and gave you a generic warning. You should feel free to ignore it, or respond to the editor who gave it to you, explaining the situation. --Lquilter (talk) 18:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Church Directory

Hi, I think that Christian church directory and the corresponding template are not a good idea. They are not encyclopedic. See WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. Please consider that most of the entries on such a list will not meet the notability guidelines for Wikipedia, and that Wikipedia is not for advertising. Tb (talk) 18:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christian church directory does not fall into any areas covered by WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. It only takes 10% of the denominations to cover %90 of the churches. Most denominations are very tiny, but nearly all churches are covered by the large denominations. The idea is not to (necessarily) to find a particular church you already know about but to find a local churches with certain traits that you do not yet know about by linking to the denominations and their "locate a local church" page that they typically have. The links to the web page and locate a local church page will be new-- i.e. not redundant. The request is at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Christianity/Article_requests#Churches.2FOrganizations. --Carlaude (talk) 18:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carlaude, this is precisely the sort of "finding aid" function that a directory has. Again, I strongly encourage you to read What Wikipedia is not. The goals that you describe are why these templates, categories, and articles are meeting with concern, because they fall outside the scope of an encyclopedia. Please consider whether, for instance, this is the sort of function that Encyclopedia Britannica would fulfill. If not, then it is most likely not the sort of function that Wikipedia would fulfill. --Lquilter (talk) 18:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christian church directory

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article Christian church directory, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 19:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christian church directory of the United States

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article Christian church directory of the United States, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 19:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Christian Church Directory

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article Template:Christian Church Directory, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at [[Talk:Template:Christian Church Directory|its talk page]]. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 19:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Church directory snafu

I'm very sorry that this left you feeling a little burned, and even mislead by the old request for such a directory. One thing which I think is a good idea is not to do lots of work off-line. It sounded like you spent a long time getting things together, and then putting them all up at once. That works well for print media or blogs sometimes, but on a collaborative wiki like this it is a risky strategy. If instead you create the page, and then start filling it, a little at a time, people would have had the same reaction, but you wouldn't have spent a lot of work in the process. Tb (talk) 00:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw the trouble you had with the stub as well. I am sorry this turned into a fiasco for you. -- SECisek (talk) 18:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Policy

See: Welcome to Wikipedia, FAQ, Wikiquette, Be nice, and Talk page guidelines.

-- SECisek (talk) 18:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christian church directory

I've put in a formal request for the page to be deleted; you can see the relevant links at its top. Tb (talk) 20:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Christian church directory

An editor has nominated Christian church directory, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian church directory and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 21:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Adventist Church logo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Adventist Church logo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 20:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of User:Carlaude/Sandbox2

A tag has been placed on User:Carlaude/Sandbox2 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it contains a gallery in the userspace which consist chiefly of fair use or non-free images.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:User:Carlaude/Sandbox2|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Mønobi 02:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics at Christianity in the United States

What was the origin of the demographic information in the state-by-state table? Tb (talk) 15:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From The ARDA and adherents.com. I am adding proper citations soon.--Carlaude (talk) 01:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Thanks for getting all this; I think it's a nice addition. I was asking b/c I think DC should be in it too. Tb (talk) 04:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Demographic table in Christianity in the United States

Giving statistics of membership in different denominational categories is useful; I hope you'll add that back. But graphics are not a normal part of tables: they take up space, and they are not particularly helpful. They generally either duplicate written information, or replace it: if they duplicate it, they do nothing; if they replace it, they are unfriendly. The guideline is to only include graphics where they increase understanding: which is fairly rare. Likewise, using state flags does not help: first, flags connote "official", which is not true here, and moreover, US state flags are generally not well recognized. People do not go "oh!" when they see the flag of South Dakota. Also, if the new statistics are there, even without the graphics, the table becomes quite wide. And, please alphabetize. That's a key point. Of course it can be resorted, but the default sorting should be alphabetical by state. The "US' is not a state, and that row duplicates info. Finally, "fixes" is not a sufficient reply to an objection to a change. Will you please adopt the strategy of talking things through? You mostly ignored any attempt to discuss the issue of flags or alphabetization. Tb (talk) 17:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have already done the tedious work of alphabetization. If you will not keep the table alphabetized, I will simply revert changes that do not preserve it. I'm not interested in cleaning up the same mess multiple times. It's not hard to keep the alphabetization. Tb (talk) 17:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should take this to Christianity in the United States. See my discussion there.

I will do alphabetization for you. Next try Excell.

I was already doing those fixes.

I do talk thing through-- will you? --Carlaude (talk) 17:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alphabetization should happen before you make the changes; not after. Redoing the table every time is unfriendly to other editors. Incremental changes are a much more preferable strategy. Tb (talk) 17:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Procedure

I have opened discussions on some important aspects of the table. I hope you will complete those conversations before further changes. I also note that you have now three times reverted my removal of images from the table today. Please do not violate WP:3RR. Tb (talk) 17:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Independent Christian Churches Churches of Christ Icon.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Independent Christian Churches Churches of Christ Icon.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion procedure

1. Editor A makes a change. 2. Editor B reverts the change and requests discussion. 3. Editors A and B discuss the best text. 4. One or both of A and B implement the result in the article.

Your procedure seems more like:

1. Carlaude makes a change. 2. TB reverts the change and requests discussion. 3. Carlaude ignores the discussion, or posts a single reply and ignores further discussion. 4. Carlaude goes ahead and makes the charge again. 5. TB requests discussion. 6. Carlaude ignores discussion. 7. TB reverts change. 8. Carlaude pays attention to discussion again.

The burden is always upon the person making the change. If you wish to make a change--such as adding a demographic table to the article--the burden is on you, not on objectors. If they raise cogent objections, you need to discuss it. It is very much playing unfair to simply ignore the discussion until the objection is reflected in changes to the article. It is much better to engage the discussion. Tb (talk) 20:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have ask before for this "procedure" to be shown to me in WP policy. I will try to take you comment under advisement but I would feel more locked into this procedure if it could be shown to be a real policy. I hope to make more comments soon but I have guest all this weekend. --Carlaude (talk) 17:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BRD. Tb (talk) 17:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Christianity Newsletter

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Carlaude

Yes, I will stop reverting my articles when people who aren't qualified, stop amending them. Since when is a major theologian's opinion about the death penalty nor relevant to the death penalty? I don't know why you want to delete the link. I suggest you stick to subjects you are competent to write about. Antonin Scalia quoted Aquinas in a recent Supreme Court ruling. And have you never heard of natural moral law? And no, you aren't going to intimidate me. I am going to keep reverting it back to the way it was. I am a medical doctor, and I am a lawyer. I also have an LLD, which in case you aren't aware, is like a PhD in the law. If you have some constructive suggestion or addition to make to my articles, please do so. Otherwise, stick to your own articles and quit pushing a political agenda. And if you want me to take you seriously, quit hiding behind a psuedonym. If you aren't willing to identify yourself, I am not inclined to take you very seriously. A E Francis (talk) 20:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 231: / Line 231: @@
 |}
 |} [[User:BetacommandBot|BetacommandBot]] ([[User talk:BetacommandBot|talk]]) 23:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
+== Hi Carlaude ==
+Yes, I will stop reverting my articles when people who aren't qualified, stop amending them.  Since when is a major theologian's opinion about the death penalty nor relevant to the death penalty?  I don't know why you want to delete the link.  I suggest you stick to subjects you are competent to write about.  Antonin Scalia quoted Aquinas in a recent Supreme Court ruling.  And have you never heard of natural moral law?  And no, you aren't going to intimidate me.  I am going to keep reverting it back to the way it was.  I am a medical doctor, and I am a lawyer.  I also have an LLD, which in case you aren't aware, is like a PhD in the law.  If you have some constructive suggestion or addition to make to my articles, please do so.  Otherwise, stick to your own articles and quit pushing a political agenda.   And if you want me to take you seriously, quit hiding behind a psuedonym.  If you aren't willing to identify yourself, I am not inclined to take you very seriously. [[User:A E Francis|A E Francis]] ([[User talk:A E Francis|talk]]) 20:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)