User talk:B/archive200606
Previous Archives
Archives: archive1 archive2 archive2b
Stuff
Main page * My Contributions * Talk to me
welcome back!
A great way to return back from Wikibreak: both you and User:CharonX have returned! I like your "Tinyville" analogy, and I'm glad you've decided to stay out of the Wars. See you around! Λυδαcιτγ(TheJabberwock) 03:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Hello Big DT
Wikipedia had two problems: Catholics want to use it as propaganda tool. And Evangelicals are harassed in every article on religion. Your editions from my articles are unfair and errors,except in the reference to geocities. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Guillen (talk • contribs) .
- Catholics want to use it as a propaganda tool. So do atheists. So do PETA people. So do born again Christians. But the whole thing is that Wikipedia ISN'T a propaganda tool. Articles should present the issues in an unbiased fashion. My reverts to your articles were because you replaced content with your opinion. Wikipedia is not a place for original research. It may be that your views on spiritual warfare are right - I don't know - to be perfectly honest, I didn't take the time to read the whole thing. But the problem is that you replaced a well-written article that had a ton of sources with an unsourced opinion piece. In another article - Plymouth Brethren, you copied and pasted content from brethrenonline.org. Neither of those actions are acceptable. This has nothing whatsoever to do with theology. If you want to contribute, by all means do so, but articles need to be written from a neutral point of view and need to be sourced. BigDT 23:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
My apologies
Regarding your imput that I inadvertantly deleted at Wikipedia:Deletion Review. I honestly have no idea what happened, maybe some edit conflict, but it didn't warn me, just allowed me to submit my edit. Sorry again, Chuck(척뉴넘) 07:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- You know, I edited like 10 minutes after you, so it couldn't have been an edit conflict. I just have no idea what happened. Chuck(척뉴넘) 07:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Not a problem ... I have removed the comment from the DRVU discussion page ... BigDT 13:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Mass deletion
I'm sorry, Firefox does not always load the whole section, so I end up submitting something that has alot of it cut off. Please forgive me and I'll be sure to check it more in the future. --mboverload@ 23:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Gotcha ... I wasn't sure if it was accidental or WP:POINT ... the cutoff wasn't at a logical place so I was kinda leaning towards accidental. Thanks for clarification and, as with everything, no harm, no foul BigDT 23:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- I think everything is back now ... we need to have a partial revert feature or something ... BigDT 23:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Ya know, there's probably some irony somewhere about a discussion about an out of process deletion of comments about an out of process deletion of a review about an out of process deletion of a template. Hmmm ... ;) BigDT 23:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- I think everything is back now ... we need to have a partial revert feature or something ... BigDT 23:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
you are Southern Baptists'?
No! nobody in a southern baptist church post garbage as "free distribution of bibles by protestants led to PROFANE uses from Bible". And you call it a neutral point of view?. What book from southern baptist theology you has ever reads?. I`m a baptist. your catholic proselytism using wikipedia will be reported to jimbo wales. I will writes entire articles on catholic massacres from evangelicals,orthodoxs and jews. If you delete it,I will writes it again and again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guillen (talk • contribs)
I never wrote any such thing. I reverted your vandalism to several articles. In no case was I expressing an opinion on any subject. BigDT 23:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm staring at that page because the user (and now an IP most likely that user as well)_ is removing the AfD tag, and I've been reverting the vandalism too often. I accidently hit that speedy delete tag you added. Want me to put it back(or you)? Its already under standard AfD, might as well let the AfD run its course as all opinions on it are speedy delete, anyways. Kevin Breitenstein 02:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- I stuck it back up there ... the AFD is running 5-0 already ... no need for it to continue IMO when it is an obvious db-bio BigDT 02:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Your userbox
I'm impressed by your userbox at Template talk:User Christian#And Speedily Deleted within 3 days of surviving TfD ... you/I/someone should post it at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Userboxes, as I'd like to use it without all the messy code ;p --Disavian 06:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
|
This user feels that out of process deletions subject to an administrator's whims rather than consensus damage Wikipedia more than any userbox ever could. |
I'm not overly inclined to put it there - that's not really what the library is for. Putting the boxx there would be more of a WP:POINT than anything else. BigDT 06:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Userbox 'templates' in userspace
Hi, I just saw you big collection of 'saved' religious userboxes from the collection. I've working on implementing Wikipedia:The German solution as mentioned/praised by Jimbo, i.e. migrating userboxes out of templatespace into userspace while keeping them as pseudo-templates there. (look at my userboxpage to see what I mean). This would allow users to decide whether to just transclude the boxes or to subst them (personally I find C&Ping the code a bit clunky). Would you be willing to help me in that effort? Also, may I link to your userbox collection (feel free to link to mine)? Best wishes (click the X). CharonX/talk 12:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- I would strongly suggest making subst the default (heck, regardless, it should be the default in the current library - that takes one of the biggest pieces of ammunition away from the anti-UBX side - namely, the argument that they can be used for vote stacking - and it keeps administrators from being able to vandalize user pages by vandalizing a single template like they did with User:Christian in the now-deleted history). By making subst the default, you keep people who don't really know any better from getting confused when they see changes.
- Feel free to link to my page
- As far as the copy process itself, it could quickly and easily be done with a bot. I don't know that there's any reason for manually copying code. I'd wait on mass copying, though, until the policy is finished. Otherwise the effort may just need to be repeated again when the final new home for the userboxes is decided on. BigDT 12:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Gotchi entry at Wikipedia
Could someone please explain to this author of the Wikipedia entry for 'Gotchi' why Wikipedia wizards are against neologisms?
The terms Wiki, Wikipedia, Wikipedians are all neologisms. To delete Gotchi would 'hoist Wikipedia by its own petard.' Look that up your Funk and Wagnells.
Please let Gotchis live.
my CV:
http://datatecture.blogspot.com
and for some early early Web 2.0 Mashup (another neologism listed in Wikipedia), check my collabs:
http://www.unmovie.net - 2002
http://www.orbit.zkm.de - 2006 or on a mobile phone http://mobile.orbit.zkm.de
cheers, datatect
- The relevant policy is located at Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. As for my vote on the AFD, I fully explained myself there. The article is essentially a vanity article. It falsely claims that the term was coined in 2006. That is patently impossible considering that Hackergotchi used the term in 2005. At any rate, articles need to have source material. They need to not be your own original research. Personally, I would have no problem with an encyclopedic article on gotchis, but your article is unsourced, vanity, and your own original research. Please see Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Citing sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view for some policies that may be helpful in writing a better version of the article. It is being deleted without prejudice, meaning, if you write a good article on the subject, you are free to represent it. BigDT 00:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
My RfA
I saw your comment at Tony's page
Why not just recreate the box in user space, like they're proposing (and may have already done) at The German solution? That would stop the wheel warring, at least until someone creates a reason for people like Tony to go after userboxes in user space. -GTBacchus(talk) 08:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Even if I do that (which, actually, has already been done), that isn't goint to stop the issue. One way or another, the issue needs to be finally settled. Either the German Solution needs to be adopted, it needs to be firmly established what T1/2 mean, or there has to be a unanimous agreement that out-of-process deletions stop. Otherwise, it's just more wheel warring. BigDT 08:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- The German solution is being adopted. There doesn't need to be a poll or anything; it's just happening. The war is over. -GTBacchus(talk) 08:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- It's happening by what authority? People have been copying userboxes to user space for a while. There's nothing stopping that from happening. But without a magic wand being waved (vote, directive from Jimbo, whatever), by what authority will it be enforced? By what authority will we not go through deletion, DRV, etc, forever? By what authority will it be ensured that the deletion wars aren't just going to move to userspace? The moment some of the die-hards decide they don't like Christian boxes in user space, they'll start deleting them there, too. BigDT 08:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Authority? What kind of place do you think this is? When I saw "No new policy is needed to do this, and this is not a policy proposal. Just go ahead and do it," written at the top of the page, I thought "finally, someone gets it!" It's just a matter of people using user space versions of the boxes and stopping with the recreating them in template space. There are already people from both sides of the controversy supporting the German solution.
- Still, I won't entirely blow off your request for authority - look at WP:JOU#No new namespace, userboxes OK in userspace. Just two days ago, Ashley Y added the March 17 bit from User talk:StrangerInParadise. Jimbo very clearly says that POV userboxes are ok in user space. Tony has said that he doesn't oppose the German solution in principle, but is waiting to see what it looks like in practice. If there ends up being a lot of vote-stacking or otherwise POV warrioring that seems to involve userboxes, then they probably won't stay safe, but I'm sure as hell willing to work with userbox people to make this solution work. The answer is probably for the keepers of userboxes to apply some level of judgement, and not allow abuse. Anyone so hard-line that they don't accept userboxes even in user space is going beyond what Jimbo said, and will face friction because of that. Jimbo's word carries a lot of weight here; you may have noticed. -GTBacchus(talk) 09:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah I read your post on his talk page too. Perhaps you should ask for one, as he has to provide it per ArbCom decision. I don't see how an edit summary could constitute an explanation in the appropreate venue nor upholding the spirit of WP:1RR. You really ought to ask him to provide a full explanation why he reverted your own action, preferably on the talk page for the template, as that would be the "appropreate venue". -- Kevin_b_er 09:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Any reversal of an administrative action ... my editing of the template was not administrative (obviously, since I do not have the ability to perform an administrative action) and hence, his reversal was not administrative. BigDT 09:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- whoops, misassumption about the creator of the page. Kevin_b_er 10:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Any reversal of an administrative action ... my editing of the template was not administrative (obviously, since I do not have the ability to perform an administrative action) and hence, his reversal was not administrative. BigDT 09:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- It's happening by what authority? People have been copying userboxes to user space for a while. There's nothing stopping that from happening. But without a magic wand being waved (vote, directive from Jimbo, whatever), by what authority will it be enforced? By what authority will we not go through deletion, DRV, etc, forever? By what authority will it be ensured that the deletion wars aren't just going to move to userspace? The moment some of the die-hards decide they don't like Christian boxes in user space, they'll start deleting them there, too. BigDT 08:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- The German solution is being adopted. There doesn't need to be a poll or anything; it's just happening. The war is over. -GTBacchus(talk) 08:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
your editions are wrongs
number one: There was citations,links and sources(books and newspapers,and many web documents) in article on Bible Society,telling on Catholic persecution against Colporteures in that countries. You and another users deleted it without any explanation. You appears to be EXCESSIVELY overconcerned with articles on Catholicism. I want to know why you no delete and edit articles where evangelicals are harassed. number two: Why you jump to edit articles on issues you don`t know nothing about it;calm down and just WAIT,give me ENOUGH TIME in order to add sources,links,resources,etc. and please tell to users in wikipedia no to delete resources links. An user deleted my entire article on certain issue only 3(Three) seconds after I have only written it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eliecer (talk • contribs)
Roger Williams
I add Roger Williams Fellowship to the list. I`m a historian. I know EVERYTHING on him. I`m no the same guy discussing if Saint Francis was Baptist or no?. By the way confounding to the italian with Saint Patrick. My notes add it: Truth seekers as used by Williams was a BAPTIST group in that age,it NO means Roger ceased to be a baptist.