User talk:BigDT/archive3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Previous Archives

Archives: archive1 archive2 archive2b

[edit] Stuff

Main page * My Contributions * Talk to me

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. —The preceding unsigned comment was 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)

[edit] Michael Upson

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

84.163.215.232

• 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)

[edit] My RfA

BigDT/archive3, thank you for participating in my RfA. Unfortunately, a great number of oppose voters felt that I lacked experience, and a consensus was not reached (the final tally was 30/28/10). Perhaps I will try again in another few months when I have a few more edits under my belt. If I do, I hope I can count on your support. Thanks again! Cool3 talk 20:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eliecer (talk • contribs).

With all due respect, the issue is your understanding of the English language. You are seeing Catholic bias in articles where there is none. The reason I have reverted most of your edits is because there are severe problems with spelling, formatting, grammar, or bias.

For example, in your changes to Plymouth Brethren, you have created two copies of the article. (See [1] for your version of the article.) When this gets reverted, it isn't going to have anything to do with Catholicism - it's because the edit is unusable.

Also, a number of links that you create are incorrect. To create a link to a Wikipedia article, use double brackets. For example:

[[Christianity]] creates a link to the article Christianity

Use a pipe (shift + \ on American keyboards) to give an alternate title for the article. For example:

[[Christianity|This is Christianity]] creates a link to the same article, but instead has the label This is Christianity

Use one bracket for external internet links. For example:

[http://www.christianity.com] creates a link to the external website [2]

To provide an alternate name for the article, use a space:

[http://www.christianity.com A website called "Christianity"] creates a link to the the same website, but with the text A website called "Christianity"

In many cases, you have created links that do not display properly. I have corrected them where possible or deleted them where I did not consider them to be appropriate.

Again, this has nothing to do with theology - I just think there's a communication problem with understanding what is going on. BigDT 21:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

BigDT 21:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eliecer (talk • contribs).

The reason I removed the description (this edit [3]) is that it is not necessary for identification. That article is a list of people - nobody else has biographical information. Biographical information goes in the article itself. Only information necessary to identify the person goes on the list. BigDT 20:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The info. is NEEDED for identification,your edit claims FALSELY him ever ceased to be a baptist. You must even to know Wiliams family nowadays,files lawsuits against people eclaiming it in printed books. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.210.203.44 (talk • contribs).

This is all that the article says about him in the version after I removed your long segment about him: "* Williams, Roger ". I'm uncertain how this makes any claim on whether or not he ceased to be a Baptist. BigDT 00:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I was talking on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Baptists&oldid=51773434

when you can writes me?. I had links and articles-no copyrighted- to contributes here. Review and edit it when you can. eliecer

[edit] Re: My userpage

I'm sorry, but I am not an admin (I do have an RfA, though) so I can't semi-protect pages. You can request semi-protection here, but it's unlikely that it will be granted, since semi-protection usually isn't used on userpages. I will add your userpage to a list of pages watched by the WP:CVU, however, and this should help with quickly reverting vandalism to your userpage. Regards. --digital_me^(t/c) 22:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Ok ... I saw the admin-type revert message - Digitalme m (Reverted edits by 68.147.119.188 (Talk) to last version by Staecker) in the history and assumed without looking ... thanks anyway BigDT 22:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've semiprotected it for you. You also requested a partial deletion of the history, and I was wondering which edits you wanted removed. Beginning with the first by 68.147.119.188? AmiDaniel (talk) 23:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed nine edits from the page's history. Five of them were by User:68.147.119.188, three were reverts of that vandalism, and one was an edit by User:Dat1337vet. If you would like any of these edits restored, please let me know. AmiDaniel (talk) 23:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

That's fine - thank you! The one revisions of most concern were the two with repeated profanity, but having everything gone is great, too. BigDT 01:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plymouth Brethren

you delete my references to closed brethren and mix it with exclusives. That only demonstrate you no know anything on this issue. bY THE WAY EXCLUSIVISTAS ARE ANOTHER PEOPLE DIFFERENT TO EXCLUSIVES ALSO. Cease now your vandalism please,and reads to southern baptist theologian donald kammerdiener. southern baptists are NO protestants. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.210.203.44 (talk • contribs).

Please LOOK at the version of the page you keep reverting to - [4] - it contains two duplicate copies of the page. It isn't usable. BigDT 00:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I am now trying to clean up your version of the article - I did NOT revert it - I am just fixing your references. Please do NOT revert back to your version - it is unusable. BigDT 00:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello Big DT writes me please!. Your edition from Plymouth Brethren had following errors: closed are no a recent division from exclusives. closed are very different to exclusives. Even publish a cassette/book displaying Exclusive teachings and rebuking it as hereticals. closed NEVER had chosen an universal leadership. closed and open brethren are NO identical to open and closed communion plymouth brethren. By example El Salvador plymouth brethren are closed and open communion. Plymouth brethren in Venezuela are closed and closed communion. Plymouth brethren in mexico are open and closed communion. Plymouth brethren in switzerland are closed and closed communion but no related to closed p b in venezuela. Please reads encyclopedia britannica 1968 edition and shawn abigail website. my e-mail adress is freelebanon at baptistmail dot com.

[edit] Stone Trek

Hey, thanks for reading what I wrote and changing your vote - I think WCityMike has gone overboard in his deletion listings today. Every film article he's nominated *is* notable in the community, even if *he* isn't aware of it. So again, thanks. MikeWazowski 04:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• I'm sure he didn't mean anything by it ... it's probably something along the lines of he saw one and then went right down the list and nominated all of them without taking the time to check and see how notable they are. Honestly, before tonight, I had never heard of any of them other than New Voages. But I've just barely gotten over the debacle that is B&B + Coto and I haven't really looked at anything Star Trek related in a while. It just floors me how they took the greatest franchise in the world and ruined it. Heck, the writing on the Hidden Frontier episode I watched tonight was better than some of their trash. But anyway ... B&B rants aside, now that I know there are other Star Trek fan movies out there, I may have to take a look at some of them. So at least something good has come from this.  ;) BigDT 04:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I know what you mean. Heck, I'm not even much of a Trek fan - but I really dig what all these independent and fan film makers are trying to do. You should really check out Stone Trek - it's funny and well worth the look-see. MikeWazowski 04:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trek AFDs

Yeah, I saw that he'd done that - I'd tried to keep the wording on that post as neutral as possible, but apparently that's not good enough. He's also tried reporting me to the administrators already as well. I wish I knew what the deal was here - sheesh! MikeWazowski 05:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• I'd suggest just letting it go and let things simmer down. Other than the silly profane one and the bios, nothing is looking to be in any real danger of getting deleted other than Stone Trek. And based on the regularity with which flash cartoons are deleted, that would be fairly consistent with Wikipedia standards. It will all work out one way or the other. BigDT 05:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

Thank you for supporting me in my recently unsuccessful RfA. I plan on working harder in the coming months so that I have a better chance of becoming an admin in the future. I hope that you will consider supporting me if I have another RfA. Thank you for your support. --digital_me^(t/c) 15:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vigil Template

Why did you change the Vigil template back? While it may have been slightly less tongue-friendly, it is more accureate to say "has the Vigil Honor" than "is a Vigil member." see here. Yours in Scouting, Scoutersig 21:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• I didn't revert it back - I proposed a third alternative. The original text was "This member is a Vigil Brother in the Order of the Arrow". Rlvese's rewording was "This user has the Vigil Honor in the Order of the Arrow." I changed it to "This user is a Vigil Honor member of the Order of the Arrow." This preserves Rlvese's "Vigil Honor" instead of "Vigil Brother" and "this user" instead of "this member", but was an alternative to the weird-sounding "has the". BigDT 21:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Do you can understand spanish?

If no,translate this link through google or altavista. http://www.verdadespreciosas.com.ar/documentos/proposito.htm This is an article by CLOSED plymouth brethren establishing their differences with Exclusives. Closed NO considers to Darby as a Leader as Exclusives does. This is similar to differences between Adventist Church and Reform Movement Adventist Church views on Ellen White. Or more known for you Southern Baptists and Southern Landmark Baptists views on John Rice. Or Holdeman and Mennonite USA Church different views on Menno Simons. Big DT I comes from CLOSED plymouth Brethren origins,I know them although more strict than open and with more authority given to fellowship over congregations NEVER has an universal leadership. Many Closed as Open NEVER has known to Raven,Taylor or Hales. writes me please,visit my website. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.210.202.143 (talk • contribs).

• My Spanish doesn't go much beyond "buenos dias" and "Necesito ir al la baño" (basically the first day of Spanish class - I switched to Latin ... I'm fluent in Latin). I took a look at the link using Altavista. Please keep in mind that these computer translations are not very good. They give you the general topic, but words are out of order and the thought is lost. Words get translated differently than you plan. For example, "stop", "halt", "don't go", "pause", "stay here", etc all mean the same thing. But that gets lost in the translation. I couldn't find "closed brethren" or "exclusive brethren" in the article or anything that would help me to understand the differences. I'm sure it's a very good paper in Spanish - but I don't understand Spanish and computerized translation just isn't that spectacular. BigDT 02:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Off the record

Thanks for backin' my hometown of Denver for the DNC 2008! Your support is greatly appreciated. Peace to ya'. Editor19841 03:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Umm ... huh? I don't think I've ever expressed an opinion as to where the Democrats should hold their convention. BigDT 08:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

On your userbox page, you listed the temp. {{User:1ne/Userboxes/Denver2008}}, indicating your support for Denver's bid. I started the category "Wikipedians for Denver 2008", as well as the template, and watch for any developments with it (who's backing the effort, etc.). If I was incorrect, I apologize for any inconvenience, but I do encourage you to support and rally support for Denver's hosting the DNC in '08. Have a good one. Editor19841 01:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh ... ok ... I see now. That's just an alphabetical listing of all userboxes ... the userboxes that reflect my personal views are on my main userpage ... BigDT 01:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Message from User:201.208.220.134

Hello Big DT writes me please!. You can't find terms "closed" "exclusives" "open" and "plymouth brethren"- by the way this last term is even offensive for some brethren assemblies,the article must to be called brethren assemblies if you want a neutral point of view-. Your use from latin,only demonstrates you are very catholic or ecumenical prone,a class from Charles Colson southern baptist. I have find tonns from false info. on baptists in wikipedia,you no respond to it,but you are concerned only with articles affecting catholicism. Why?. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.208.220.134 (talk • contribs).

• I don't even know where to begin ...
  1. The very article we are discussing - Plymouth Brethren - has nothing to do with Catholicism. I actually have NO interest in writing about Catholic subjects. Again, as I have said before, none of this is an issue of content. Rather, it is a language barrier. You may be interested to know that there is a Spanish wikipedia - http://es.wikipedia.org . You could contribute on there and learn how Wikipedia works. Right now, some of your edits here just problems and there is a language problem with me explaining the issues. I believe that most of the bias you are seeing doesn't really exist.
  2. Plenty of people learn the Latin language for reasons other than Catholicism. To say that knowing Latin makes me Catholic is patently silly. Besides, even if there somehow were something wrong with learning Latin, when I was taking Latin classes, I was an agnostic. I was saved my second year of college.
  3. You said that the article you linked would explain to me the differences between "Closed" and "Exclusive" Brethren. If I am not going to find the terms "Closed" and "Exclusive" in the article, how is it going to help me understand the difference?

  BigDT 22:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Google Toolbar...

...has a spellchecker built in. =) --mboverload@ 20:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Umm ... are you referring to any edit in particular? BigDT 21:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Religion userbox directory in userspace

Hi BigDT, thanks for everything you're doing to help end the userbox wars. I thought I could help by starting a mirror directory of Wikipedia:Userboxes#Gallery. As part of that process, would it be okay with you if I updated User:Rfrisbie/Userboxes/Religion to show the userboxes listed at User:BigDT/Religious User Boxes? I've already linked to your page in the "See also" section. Regards, Rfrisbie^talk 20:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to link to anything I have done or to copy/paste anything I have done. My only requirement in terms of userboxes is that nothing contained in my userspace be offensive, sarcastic, or hateful towards Christianity (or any other religion for that matter). BigDT 23:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll just be linking things to matching directory pages, not adding pages to your userspace. :-) Rfrisbie^talk 23:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nomination of The Belgrade Initiative for deletion

Just a big thank you for helpfully dealing with this and pointing me to useful resources. BlueValour 02:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

For your note. I do have a purpose, and need to spend some time writing it out. Maybe I'll userify those pages for the time being. Thanks again. Rich Farmbrough 12:36 12 June 2006 (GMT).

Ok ... there is a discussion going on at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of chapters and verses in the Book of Job ... you may want to mention your purpose there. Userfying them is probably a very good idea, though, as it would save the headache of arguing over what to do with them in the interim. BigDT 12:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of backronyms AfD

Good for you! I've been considering nominating this horrible and useless page for months. I don't know why I didn't, but at least you did. Phiwum 14:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The 5 Crowns

1) HELP!- This article is so past my knowledge that I don't know how to fix it. I figured I'd find a member of the Christianity project to take a look at it. Its only lucky that I happened to find a fellow Virginian. It also helps that you are a Protestant and therefore more knowledgable about presumably Protestant eschatology (sp).

2) The article seems to be posted by a reverend of some (unknown) denomination, but the tone doesn't seem particularly mainstream, although that could just be his choice and style of words.

3) The article makes no pretension of being NPOV and is clearly meant to be a document for both potential converts and current followers of "x" denomination. I'm going to therefore post a NPOV tag on it, as appropriate. I don't think wikipedia is the place to find converts or to post sermons.

4) I suspect the text is a copyright violation stolen from a religous tract, but I'm not sure

5) I've heard of the "5 Crowns," but only in passing, so your help would be apperciated.

6) Thanks for you time. I'm just a little overwhelmed here.

V. Joe 23:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

"The Crown of #REDIRECT Righteousness" ... that's a new one. ;) Unfortunately, that article seems to be a cut/paste from http://www.bible-knowledge.com/Rewards-in-Heaven.html ... that page says at the bottom, "This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5 License." That's not a sufficiently free license for Wikipedia - Wikipedia needs to be able to create derivative works and material can't have commercial restrictions. Unfortunately, the only possible remedy is to blank it as a copyvio. It is a worthwhile topic, though ... and I wouldn't mind taking a look at an article on the subject in the future. BigDT 00:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Heads-Up Regarding Your 'Lost' Vote

The closing admin closed it in favor of keeping it, despite six delete votes, one merge/delete vote, one keep vote, and one transwiki vote. The matter is up for deletion review here and the article has been nominated for a second time here. As you were involved in the original process, I wanted to alert you so you could take action as you saw appropriate. I will not be adding your response to my watchlist, so please respond either to my talk page or to one of the two venues this is being discussed. — Mike • 04:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tamara Klisaric AfD

G'day BigDT,

thanks for adding that header there. I didn't consider how confusing it would look without it on the daylog! fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 11:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CSD for non-notable companies

In one of your AFD nominations yesterday, you said that we need a CSD for non-notable companies. Can you chime in on discussion of one at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Propose speedying nn corporations. I think we are getting close to one that would be workable, but want a more experiencd editors eye on it. GRBerry 17:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

Hello BigDT, and thanks for voting in my recent RfA, which passed with a tally of (68/19/3). I appreciated your comments, which I hope to take on board in order to gain your respect in my work as an administrator. Best of luck in your continued editing of the encyclopedia! Sam Vimes 17:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Keyboard and sig

thanks.. it is a PC.. the " and @ keys are back-to-front (the numbers are normal). No pound sign .. THIS is what I get from 1-0 when i keep shift button depressed: !@#$%^&*(). Strange. Oh i know what you mean about the length of my html sig.. but i am still beginner..Can't work out to condese it - it took me ages to set up on the preferences in the first place but... -- maxrspct leave a message 20:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Normally, the tilde ~ is to the left of the 1. Is there not one on your keyboard? BigDT 20:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

No the tilde on mine shift and HASH key . But it comes out as : | or \ without shift. -- maxrspct leave a message 21:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

This is mine-> International_keyboard_layouts#UK. cheers . -- maxrspct leave a message 21:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's one solution for you if you use IE:

• Make sure that you have the "Links" toolbar displayed. If you do not, right-click on the toolbar and hit "links"
• From the "Favorites" menu, choose "Add to Favorites", click the "Create in" button to display the folder list and choose "Links". Name your new item "Add tildes".
• You will see "Add tildes" appear on your "Links bar". Right-click on it and choose "Properties".
• In the URL box, add this code: javascript:void(insertTags('~~~~','',''))
• Click ok, answer yes to any warning.
• Now, clicking on that button will add your signature in Wikipedia.

BigDT 21:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citing to the Bible

As a recent participant in the TfD dicussion on whether {{Bibleverse}} and {{Bibleref}} should be deleted, I wanted to make sure you were aware of the new discussion at Wikipedia:Citing sources/Bible. The goal of these discussion is to resolve the concerns raised re GFDL, use of an external cite, etc. Additionally, this page should serve as a location for recording research about the different websites that provide online Bible information. Please edit the summary and join the discussion - thx Trödel 15:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crunk

Yeah, of course it's drug-related - CrazyRussian talk/email 05:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I had always assumed that, but then I went to Crunk and saw that it had a musical definition, so I was (and am) willing to give the benefit of the doubt, especially considering that a disproportionately large percentage of his edits are related to something resembling music. BigDT 10:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] image deletion and Image:KaavyaViswanathan2.jpg

Thanks for the counsel. I had tagged the picture for speedy deletion but the person who posted it removed the tag. He/she is very fond of the picture, evidently, and deleted several attempts to have it removed. Uucp 13:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. A lot of people just don't seem to understand that thwarting efforts to delete copyvio images is only prolonging the inevitable.  ;) BigDT 13:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for the assist, man. — Mike • 21:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I call it like I see it on all of them ... the first AFD had a bunch of redlinked users ... there were either some socks or, at best, some people who don't contribute very often. That's the problem with the WP:SK guideline - setting a hard standard of six months isn't ... well ... a guideline. I have yet to see someone anywhere explain how this article meets WP:NOR. Just because Star Wars fans find lightsabre techniques interesting doesn't mean we need an article that is even more detailed than the Wookieepedia article on the subject. BigDT 21:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Bingo. And glad that that WP:SK guideline didn't go through, although the guy who tried to speedy-enact it is in the midst of an RfA, disturbingly enough. — Mike • 21:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unprotection of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals

Done. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. BigDT 12:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Holy Spirit Userfication

Hi,

I did that for you, at your desired title. DRV can be a little slow on those sometimes, so you can ask me directly if ever you need anything. Best wishes, Xoloz 16:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! BigDT 22:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why have you tagged this image for deletion?

Thanks for reviewing the image licensing issues on the Utah-BYU rivalry page. I uploaded most of those images without much thought to the licensing rules, thinking that proper citation would be sufficient. I am curious as to the reasoning behind your tagging the following image for deletion:

Image:SITyDetmer.jpg

It seems to me that this is a proper use of a copyrighted image. Please show me where I'm wrong. Thanks.--CincyUte 01:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The fair use criterion {{Magazinecover}} says that publication covers may be used "to illustrate the publication of the issue of the magazine in question". The fifth item under Wikipedia:Fair use#Counterexamples names as an example of what is NOT fair use, "A photo from a press agency (e.g. Reuters, AP), not so famous as to be iconic, to illustrate an article on the subject of the photo." This image is being used to illustrate Ty Detmer, not to illustrate SI, and thus it does not qualify for what is considered fair use on Wikipedia. BigDT 01:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] College football trophy and Bevo

Hello BigDT, thanks for notifying me about the listing of this image for deletion, and also for your follow-up message. I have removed the image from the two user pages, and also checked on the usage in all the other articles. It seems to me that we are on very firm footing to use a single frame image (1/30th of a second) from a broadcast that lasts much longer than that (3 hours I think) on any article dealing with the subject matter shown. Also, the image is degraded by virtue of being a photograph of a TV set. The image is used for educational purposes and there is no possible way that the photo could be interferring with the commercial rights of the copyright holder. I think removing the image completely would be a mis-step. If there are any further actions I can take to ensure that the picture is used appropriately in each of these remaining articles, I stand ready to do what is needed. Johntex\^talk 13:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest perhaps (1) reducing the resolution to 400x300 or something on that order to make it a "web resolution" screenshot as called for in {{tv-screenshot}}. You may even want to go so far as to delete the larger version so that someone doesn't revert to it. (2) Remove the image at least from trophy and Bevo (mascot), where it unambiguously is just illustrating the subject of the broadcast, rather than the broadcast itself. BigDT 14:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi BigDT, thanks for your suggestions. I agree with you that the connection to trophy is small. Perhaps if we had an article on this specific trophy, but we don't, so I'll remove it. Could you please take another look at Bevo (mascot)? The image is used there in the "public appearances" section and mentions the fact that it is the current Bevo - which we don't have another photo of. If we can agree on these changes and if I replace the image with a smaller one, would that address your concerns sufficiently for you to remove your listing at Images for Deletion? Thanks again for your help. Johntex\^talk 14:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know that it is appropriate to remove the listing of anything from xFD. I will, however, add a comment referencing this conversation and asking for other users with copyright experience to examine it for compliance with Wikipedia's fair use policy. BigDT 15:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you - I think it is acceptable to remove a listing you yourself have added, but I appreciate what you have done. I have also removed the image from trophy, as I said I would. I hope you don't mind, but I added strikethrough to that article in your IfD listing. Thanks, Johntex\^talk 15:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• BTW - if you decide you would like to enable your e-mail, I have a small note that I would like to send to you without it being public. If you don't want to have e-mail enabled I understand - it is not a matter of great importance but I just thought it might interest you. Johntex\^talk 15:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I've enabled it ... BigDT 16:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! It's not working yet. Did you select the "enable" check box further down the page? You may also have to authenticate it first - wikipedia will send you an e-mail to click on. Johntex\^talk 16:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

It was checked ... but somehow, my email address itself had been blanked ... I'm not sure why it let me check enable email without supplying an address. Go figure. Anyway, I have supplied my email address, confirmed it, and re-checked the button. BigDT 16:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

OK thanks - I sent you an e-mail Johntex\^talk 17:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello Brother

Hey, I joined the College Football Project and was checking out other people's user pages, and I saw that you are a born again Christian. I am too. I attend an Independent Baptist Church Bornagain4 19:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nomination for RfA

I thank you for the kind words. However, given that users with more time and edits than I have are frequently turned opposed largely on the basis of time and edit count, I don't know that there would be much point in going through the process at this point in time. BigDT 19:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Getcrunk 2

Thanks for pointing out the bug. I didn't realize that I cut off the bottom part of the page. I will look out for this in the future. -- Underneath-it-All 20:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. BigDT 20:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)