User talk:Pastor Theo

If you leave a message here, I will respond to it here. Thank you.

Soviet-run Soviet-influenced Soviet-runAllegations of Soviet influence on non-soviet activist groups

The statement "AfD is not WP:CLEANUP" had already addressed non-notability issues, and I had missed it. I have made the point myself, in other words and with varying degrees of success, on numerous AfDs. Note, however, that I questioned, and still do, the reliability of all of the sources that were then present in the article, and the better sources have their own articles; there wasn't any content at all, and therefore nothing notable, once everything not verifiable or unduplicated was considered. Anarchangel (talk) 00:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello! I am sorry that you are unhappy with my judgment and my closing statement on this AfD. However, you have the option to take this discusson to WP:DRV if you feel that the closure was not proper. Thanks! Pastor Theo (talk) 01:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I won't be. Your judgment wasn't wrong, as it happens. I had't built up enough of a case, and I may never be able to. Richard F. Staar and the Hoover Institution are still more fellow travellers with the CIA than the WPC ever was with the USSR, but so far I haven't found the proof that peer review finds their product lacking. Even if I can't find any peer review at all, there's still the defectors and the general. Anarchangel (talk) 03:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Inner Wisdom Foundation

Fr. Theo,

I am not sure why you would delete our page. We are a foundation. We have our 501c3 status we are legitimate and we own our name. What is the problem? Our name is Inner Wisdom Foundation, Inc. Please help me understand why you would delete our page.

coleen@innerwisdomvt.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.104.193 (talk) 00:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello! Please read WP:SPAM and WP:COI to understand why the article was taken off-Wiki. Thanks! Pastor Theo (talk) 01:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Gitorious (continued from Archive 2)

Hi, please reconsider the speedy deletion of the Gitorious article. In addition to being the next most popular Git hosting site after GitHub and hosting several high-profile projects, such as Qt and Sugar, Gitorious' server software is notable as it is one of the most full-featured open-source project development platforms (the code underlying Sourceforge, Launchpad, GitHub, Bitbucket, CodePlex, and other popular services is all proprietary), and is among the most popular server choices for running a Git project hosting server. I have revised the article to emphasize these points on User:Tuxcantfly/Gitorious. Tuxcantfly (talk) 16:24, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello! In its current state, I believe the article runs afoul of WP:RS standards and will probably either get tagged for speedy deletion or tagged for AfD. It would help your cause if you can add proper references to the article. Thanks! Pastor Theo (talk) 22:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello again, the revised article at User:JasonWoof/Gitorious has had many references added, of which I believe the official press/news releases from Nokia's Qt Software subsidiary and the KDE project are unambiguously WP:RS (I have also added secondary sources of those announcements). Thanks again for your time. Tuxcantfly (talk) 04:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello again. If you feel that the article can survive online, feel free to repost it. Thanks. Pastor Theo (talk) 19:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

for this diff,

I thank you. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 03:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

How can I delete an image uploaded by me?

Hi,

I wanted to know that whether I have the right to delete any image which is uploaded by me on Wikipedia or any of its subs. If yes, than can you please tell me the procedure for it in a simple manner?

Thank You, Sukhoi30mki (talk) 08:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Greetings! You can either tag it for deletion (go to WP:CSD and read up on that) or you can tell me which image you want deleted and I can do it for you. Thanks! Pastor Theo (talk) 09:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

I've uploaded an image named "Front View of Saraswati International School .jpg" but I'm not able to include it in my article of Saraswati International School. And also I've included two other images in the same article, but I'm not able to adjust those; so can you please arrange them for me? Because I'm not able to adopt to those things quickly. I hope you help me out once again.

Thank You, Sukhoi30mki (talk) 14:14, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello again! It appears that photo is in the article now. However, I did remove the satellite photo, since there is already a link to it (and I fixed the URL for that link) and I rearranged the photos to run on the right side of the page. There is a nice selection of photographs. Thanks. Pastor Theo (talk) 22:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

Thanks dude ! Can you set the photo of Statue of Saraswati Goddess at the top? Because people recognise S.I.S. by this pic.

Thank You, Sukhoi30mki (talk) 12:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

So you think you can Copy Edit?

Could you take a look at Wikipedia:Peer review/November Nine/archive1 and give me a hand?---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I will see what I can. Thanks for thinking of me. :) Pastor Theo (talk) 00:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

NP... when I find somebody who enjoys that task, I try to take advantage of them when I can... copy editing is not my strong suit.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 00:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, don't think poker playing is how I spend my Sundays! :D Pastor Theo (talk) 00:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Might increase attendance. ;-)---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 00:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barry Snowdon

I think no consensus here was absolutely the correct call here and I applaud you for making it. There is no consensus globally about what makes a local celebrity notable or non-notable, nor was there a consensus on what would make Snowdon notable or non-notable. Both sides had strong arguments and there really was no way it should have been closed as anything other than no consensus. Well done. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I spent a great deal of time looking over this and, quite frankly, neither side really sold their case. I appreciate your sharing your thoughts with me. And, by the way, congrats on how your RfA is progressing! :) Pastor Theo (talk) 01:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

As the nominator, I would also like to thank you for making the correct decision based upon the arguments presented in the AfD. I had initially thought this was a no-brainer that would be a quick and unanimous delete. I was therefore very surprised at the level of passionate debate to keep Barry Snowden in the encyclopedia. No consensus is the right choice for now. Astronaut (talk) 03:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Astronaut! :) Pastor Theo (talk) 10:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Request for copy-editing: Badnjak

Hello, Pastor Theo! The article Badnjak is one of the Philosophy and religion good articles. Since its promotion to GA status I've added more text to it. I try to write good English, but I'm not a native speaker, and probably there are places in the text that could be improved. I believe the article has a potential for the FA status (though for now there is a want of more pictures). Would you be willing to do the copy-editing of that article (you might even find the subject interesting :))? VVVladimir (talk) 17:03, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello! I will look at the article and, if my schedule allows, I will provide whatever copy editing input I can offer. Considering the article is at GA status, I think you are on the right track already! Thanks! Pastor Theo (talk) 22:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Matt Sanchez

Very bad move there. He is still under a community ban and the community has not lifted that ban. That is why he was blocked. The ban is currently being discussed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request for clarification: Bluemarine. Until the ban is lifted, he is banned from Wikipedia. You should undo your unblock immediately. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 01:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello. A few things are in order. First, I spent a good deal of this evening reviewing the full case of Mr. Sanchez -- I was unfamiliar with this situation prior to the evening's Wikipedia look-see. This decision came after hours of processing the information, and it came after lengthy deliberation of the facts. Sandstein is a highly respected admin and I do not take lightly the fact that I am second guessing his decision in regard to an editor who appears to have very few friends on this web site. Second, Mr. Sanchez is not "banned" from Wikipedia -- he has been unblocked earlier in the year, but his status here -- specifically, the definition of what he can and cannot edit -- is murky and in need of being confirmed in a be-all/end-all manner that will not create confusion. He has expressed confusion on his status and members of Arbcom appear to share the confusion. Third, blocking is not designed for punishment but to prevent disruptive editing; there was no disruptive editing on Mr. Sanchez's part, in particular his concerns on the Matt Drudge article and the BLP issues raised therein. Fourth, your interest in Mr. Sanchez's case appears to be more than academic -- you were the one who demanded that he be blocked and you are here on my page within a half-hour of my unblocking him demanding that he be re-blocked. I will point out that Mr. Sanchez has repeatedly requested that you disengage from his talk page, and I would echo his requests. That being said, I will be keeping an eye on Mr. Sanchez's editing in the upcoming days, and I will not hesitate to reinstate the block if I find him to be out of line with Wikipedia's policies. Thank you. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Why is it so hard for people to understand what "banned" means? He is under a community ban, regardless of whether or not people are confused about Arbcom's status. A banned user is blocked - that's procedure. Always has been. The community has not lifted that community ban. Therefore he should not have been editing, whether or not it was controversial edits is meaningless - ban = no editing, period. Shouldn't even be discussing technicalities. Community ban + banned + blocked = no editing is not a hard concept but people are hell bent on making it one. You say you will be keeping an eye on Mr. Sanchez's editing in the upcoming days, and I will not hesitate to reinstate the block if I find him to be out of line with Wikipedia's policies but that's not acceptable because while he's under the community ban that has not been lifted by the community, he should not be editing at all, even in line with Wikipedia's policies. No editing at all, other than his own talk page. That's what a ban is, last I checked. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 01:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

According to his block log, Mr. Sanchez was reintegrated into the community in an unblock executed on December 10, 2008, by User:Daniel. It would seem odd that he is simultaneously banned and unblocked, no? As for the nature of the community ban, I will leave that to the good people of our community to determine what, if anything, Mr. Sanchez can contribute to Wikipedia. My input in this melodrama is limited solely to reviewing an unblock request, and I have nothing more to add tonight. Thank you and be well. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I thought you said you spent hours researching this?? If so, you'd seen that the unblock in December was for limited interaction (uploading images and videos only to help "blind people have access") and was set by Arbcom. Arbcom's stipulations and time have expired but his community ban hasn't. His Arbcom ban specifically stated that his community ban was still in effect. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 02:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Your interest in Mr. Sanchez has been noted. Thank you and good night. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Pastor Theo. I believe unblocking Bluemarine at this point was not a good idea because most of the arbitrators commenting at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Arbitrator views and discussion 3 agree he is still community-banned, and is thus forbidden to edit per WP:BAN, no matter what edits he may have made. Also, I find it uncollegial that you unblocked that user without first consulting me, as per WP:BP##Block reviews, or the community that banned him via an WP:ANI thread to find out whether there was any support for lifting his block.  Sandstein  05:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello! It appears we need to agree to disagree on this matter. I have already stated my concerns on the block at Mr. Sanchez's talk page, and I will have no disagreement in reblocking Mr. Sanchez if there is evidence that he is engaged in deliberately disruptive editing. Thank you and be well. Pastor Theo (talk) 10:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Mandeville Films

Even though this article seems relevant, it was marked for speedy deletion apparently because it was created by a "banned" user. Is there anything you can do to save it, or at least un-do the speedy delete? I know the formatting of the page seems a bit broken, but deleting it because of that, too, seems a little harsh... Thanks, Shymian (talk) 09:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the article is relevant, and a quick search of Google News confirms that. If you are serious about saving the article, you may want to spruce it up with proper referencing. Thanks! Pastor Theo (talk) 10:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the rescue. I don't think I know yet what constitutes "proper" references, but I'll certainly try to dig some up! I'll let you know how it turns out (if you don't mind, that is!) Shymian (talk) 10:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

HELP!! I tried to add the refs, but I don't think I did it correctly cuz now they show up as blank :-( Can you fix for me??? Shymian (talk) 12:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)