User talk:Pastordavid

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to my talk page!

This page is occassionally archived. If a conversation we were having is archived, please continue it in a new section on this page.

Wikipedia is not censored, but my talk page is. Obsenity, whether vandalism or not, will be deleted.


Contents

[edit] Featured article

I've seen elsewhere that having one featured article is an almost required step to becoming an admin. Congratulations on Maximus the Confessor, and my sincere hope that you don't stop here. We've got a lot of work for you yet to do, future admin or not. I'm still working on all the Wikipedia:WikiProject Saints/Missing articles, and many/most of them would probably benefit from your expert input. John Carter 16:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind remarks! I'm happy the article reached FA status as it deserved. I'm more happy, because Wikiproject Greece is enriched with one more FA. As a matter of fact, I spend most of my time in the English WP and not in the Greek one (though I should - Greek wiki needs our experience). So, if you ever need my input or feedback, do not hesitate to ask. I think that, in certain cases, my Greek library of religious books could be helpful.--Yannismarou 20:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Kudos for the FA! :-) --Michalis Famelis (talk) 20:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations! Keep up the good work. Majoreditor 02:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 747 Argument

Hi Pastordavid. Re your 747 vote, you might want to know that I am a strong theist (and run John Polkinghorne's web presence) and the reason I think the 747 Gambit should be kept is that it is a very bad argument which has been rightly criticised by notable commentators, even some sympatheic to Dawkins. The people who want it deleted are Dawkins supporters who want to shield their Guru from criticism. If that encourages you to change your vote I'd be very grateful, though of course it's your decision. NBeale 00:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 747 comments

Thanks for your kind words and for pointing out to NBeale that editors should not be coerced into changing their votes. Unfortunately he has taken this AfD personally and I think that is why he has lost some perspective - probably due to the conflict of interest that you pointed out. Hopefully he will reexamine his edits in the light of your advice. Sophia 07:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Pastor David, your neutrality on the AfD, kindness towards people who don't share your views, and the example that you set for other religious editors, are in effect far greater living arguments against Dawkins than all the attempts to use Wikipedia as a platform to attack and refute the book. I'm impressed by your behaviour, and thank you for caring about the quality of the encyclopaedia. --Merzul 16:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nice work on the WP Saints Sidebar

Looks good! How/when do you want to introduce it? Majoreditor 04:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks great to me as well. Thanks for the work! John Carter 15:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Couple of Biblical quesions

First let me piont out that I am not going to talk "religion". Have nothing for or against, but I am not a "religious" person and want to keep the conversation "neutral" anyway. Also will try not to talk of other "theories" as many are scared of (as you may already have noticed). Just want to ask a couple of simple straight forward questions. If you don't care to answer, that is quite alright.

  • Have I every e-mailed you in the past. Don't have to mention what it was about; just a "yes" or "no" will do.
  • How many Chapters in Acts of the Apostles?
  • What is the name of the main person in Chapter 10?
  • What is his occupation or "line of work" or what he is known for?
  • What country is he associated with?
  • How many books all total for the New Testament and Old Testament as in the normal Christian bible you have on your desk now?

If you care not to answer these questions, that is alright. I will understand. I'll check later back here. --Doug talk 23:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PAGE HELP!!

Can you visit my page and comment on it? I want some advice on making it more catchy, and I like the set up of yours. I am not a new user. Read my little sandboxes like LongRiver Ledger and NEOPETSetc. and comment MAINLY on those please! THIS GOES FOR EVERYONE!! PLEASE VISIT AND COMMENT!! thanx!! (saw you on a user page) BEATLES RULE!!! go fonz! 21:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Saint

It's an excellent start for that section, I think. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for the welcome/ I sugested som,ething similar to CTS a while back...It's good to see something's finally being done. Passing around a few banners.... Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 20:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The vandal on my userpage

Hi Pastordavid

10 points to you for your comment on my talk page. If you haven't seen it already, I reported him to WP:AN/I and El C has sent the account into the next world. Happy editing. Valentinian T / C 21:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

You're probably right. Btw, congratulations with your FA on Saint Maximus. Valentinian T / C 21:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Knights Templar

Thank you for your comments at the FA nom.  :) I was wanting to check with you on something, if you don't mind. I understand what you're saying about condensing one of the sections. However, in the recent peer review, the comments were generally that the article was too short, and needed to be expanded. So, I'm feeling a bit stuck, with one group wanting the article longer, and another group wanting the article shorter.  ;)

In terms of the History of the Knights Templar article, you are correct that it's unusually short right now. This is because most of our effort has gone into getting the central Knights Templar article polished up first, and then we were going to turn our attention to expanding related articles (as listed at {{Knights Templar}}), some of which might be Featurable in their own right. So yes, the plan to expand the History article considerably, but it's definitely not there yet.

I'm not quite sure of the best way to proceed, in order to please as many people as possible at this point. One possibility is that we could simply merge the History article into the main article for now, but there are some expanded details on the History page which really wouldn't be appropriate to merge into the main article, and I'd hate to delete them entirely. Or, we could simply get rid of the "{{main}}" link at the top of the History section, would that address concerns? Or perhaps change it to a {{see also}}? I'm open to suggestions.  :) --Elonka 18:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand the frustration with the review process -- feeling like people are asking for mutually contradictory changes. I am aware that the desire for concise prose is not something that everyone in the community shares with me -- in fact, I think we often reward articles that are bloated with unnecessarily verbose language. But ... that's my own take on it.
As far as suggestions, I would like to see that section trimmed - perhaps by 500-1,000 words. I would leave the "main article" template, even if it isn't trimmed. Recognizing that concensus is needed for FA, and since I haven't voted, how about I head over there and vote as "neutral" and you can handle that section in the way you (and the rest of the editors on the page) best see fit?
Let me say, in addition, that I do think it is a very well-done article and you and those who have worked on it should be proud. There is great summary prose in the other sections, and it is a well-illustrated and informative article. -- Pastordavid 17:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Great work ... my word count put the section at just over 2,000 now, a definite improvement. I have changed my vote to support, a very fine article; well done. -- Pastordavid 07:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Qxz

Thanks! Yes, I did want to know. So perhaps you can help me since you keep an eye on his talk page. Do you know of the log pages I talked about in one of my questions? - Mgm|(talk) 09:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

  • That was exactly the page I meant. Thanks for saving me a lot of headaches. Finding a deleted page is possible for admins (and I am one), but it gets a lot harder if you don't know what title to look for. You've just saved me a lot of searching. I'll try to contact Qxz about it if his email is still active. - Mgm|(talk) 10:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] dispute

Comment removed for the time being (thanks for understanding)

Sophia 22:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I just wanted to let you know that I did make an offer to the editor involved. However, I would like to not have others commenting on it/talking about it until he has had a chance to see it and respond. Thanks. -- Pastordavid 23:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
No problems - I'm happy to go with anything that works. Thanks fo your help. Sophia 06:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Could you also give your immediate feedback on the article itself. In general, even with the criticism toned down I don't like the article. It doesn't read like a biography, I don't know what is wrong exactly, perhaps the book review stuff should be incorporated into a more coherent overview of his positions. In any case, your comments would be very welcome, as that article is now at the centre of the dispute, and since it is a living person's biography something needs to be decided about it, and then we can talk about any other issues. --Merzul 12:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the article needs some work. However, because of my involvement with NBeale, I don't know that my commenting directly on the article would be the best idea right now. Might I suggest posting a note a either WikiProject Biography and WikiProject Science, and seeing if that brings in some good editors to comment. If that does not work, list the article in a Request for Comment. -- Pastordavid 15:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the advice. I'm also new to Wikipedia, and while I'm aggressively throwing policy at NBeale, I don't assume everything that I have said is right, I sure believe in it myself, but I think NBeale has reason to believe he is right, so please don't be afraid of telling me when I'm going too far. I will post on these Wikiprojects and then unwatch the Orr page, and now that you are working with him I will try to step out of his way as much as I can. --Merzul 17:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Eeh... Thanks for putting it so mildly. I have been questioning his motives and been quite generally unkind. However, most of the time, I like NBeale, he has a good sense of humour, and when he is talking about content, he is very helpful, like here. Of course, he couldn't resist adding a clever aside about Dawkins, but that's fine, we can have our little arguments and jokes on the talk page as long as this doesn't spill over into the articles. Anyway, I'm taking a short wikibreak now, when I come back I will apologize to him. Thank you for helping us. --Merzul 18:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] thank you!

Thank you for offering to help! I am looking for someone who will be very, very, very patient with me. I don't know if you are very, very. very patient or not- if not you might want to escape now. Zantaggerung 14:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry. I honestly thought some of them didn't get the subject. This is why I need a mentor. I didn't know that I was always supposed to paste at the bottom of a discussion. Zantaggerung 15:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John Chrysostom: GA on Hold

John Chrysostom is on hold pending minor issues -- see reviewer Bozhinov's comments. I've added some thoughts of my own on the talk page on how we can address most of the issues. Please let me know what you think. Thanks. Majoreditor 14:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Glad to see that the article passed GA review. Congratulations and thanks for the wonderful work. Majoreditor 20:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/a/s/User_talk%7EPastordavid_7035.html"