User talk:Justinfr

Talk

To leave a message for me, please start a new section; I will reply on this page and leave you a talkback notice.

Older discussions: Archive 1 | Archive 2

David Lake

Please slow down and look at the article, which I am still working on. This is a notable architect.Elan26 (talk) 17:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)Elan26[reply]

Looks like you've added more buildings. I'll take the tag off. justinfr (talk/contribs) 17:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your revert of Aram Nahraim

I'd be interested to know what your expertise is on the topic.

Why do you consider it a stable page when it has repeatedly alternated between two very different perspectives, and why is it you don't use the discussion page to make your case before reverting something.Rktect (talk) 18:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no expertise on the topic, I based my revert on the discussion here. But you're right--instead of 'stable' I should have said, "The one that's concise and appears to be well referenced, as opposed to the one that appears to be a bunch of original research with references only to Bible verses." justinfr (talk/contribs) 19:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Beyond participating in that AN discussion though, I don't really have an interest in the article--it just happened to still be on my watchlist. I'll stay out of any content disputes. justinfr (talk/contribs) 19:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The list of Bible verses referencing the relation between toponyms is submitted to get at a problem of internal consistancy between the primary source and the much later greek commentaries referring to the twin rivers. Essentially the issue is that the Tigrs and Euphraties are not the only pairs of rivers used as boundaries in the ANE. In the ANE the watershed of the Orontes and Jordan rivers is the topic of discussion in everything from Egyptian campaign literature to Sumerian, Akkadian and Assyrian king lists. Repeating an obvious mistake that has found its way into bad secondary literature can ruin the value of an encyclopedia article. Correcting the mistake is not original research just good editing. Rktect (talk) 20:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wasilla Assembly of God

I am a retired mathematician formerly at Stanford unfamiliar with Wikipedia publication standards.

About fifteen people, including yourself, made conributions to the Wasilla Assembly of God article. Similarly, a number corrected and sourced Larry Kroon and Ed Kalnins, including articles with them prior to Palin being nominated.

The revisions were made per the suggestions.

How was it and related articles completely deleted without warning?EricDiesel (talk) 02:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I restored the article per Synergy's request. It seems the article wasn't a G4, as it discusses a different church in Wasilla, Alaska that Palin also attended. Regardless, the article has now been nominated for deletion here. Thanks, - auburnpilot talk 02:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I was the one who nominated Wasilla Assembly of God for deletion because it seemed to be the same content as other Wasilla church articles, only with a different name. An administrator, User:AuburnPilot‎ agreed with me and deleted the article. Other editors, however, have disagreed and so the article has been restored. My apologies for the mixup.

Regarding the other deleted articles, there have been a number of messages left on your talk page with links to WP publication standards. The most important one is WP:NOTABILITY. The article's subjects must be notable enough on their own--outside of their association with Sarah Palin--to warrant an article. The consensus has been that most of them are not. justinfr (talk/contribs) 02:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand how anyone reading the two church articles, one of which was in the Atlantic Monthly for the controversies long before Palin was nominated, the other which has a pastor making political statements based on theological arguments, said statements later adopted as policy positions by Palin, and referenced by the Chicago Tribune, could be confused as having identical content in good faith.

Most delete recommendations based on lack of sources were made before the major media sources were added, so they should be irrelevant to a consensus.

I wrote personal messages addressing each deletion suggestion, then responded to their suggestions. I was accused of Spamming, which means sending the same message in an automated way. Does Wikipedia have a different definition of Spamming? Why bother to respond to suggestions if the response is called Spamming, and if the implemented suggestions are simply deleted?

Sorry if this sounds angry, but Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, and no historian would not want encyclopedia articles on schools and churches, and pastors and teachers of a historical public figure whose claim to fame is application of her theological thinking to her policies, especially when the teachers and the historical figure share controversial views, and those same views make the historic figure become relevant. I (and) many others on the edit page responded to each suggestion on my talk page, both in the articles and to them individually. Thanks76.167.163.164 (talk) 02:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]