User talk:Sjharte

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] A welcome from Sango123

Hello, Sjharte, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We're glad to have you in our community! Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Though we all make goofy mistakes, here is what Wikipedia is not. If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to see the help pages or add a question to the village pump. The Community Portal can also be very useful.

Happy Wiki-ing!

-- Sango123 17:05, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you need help with anything or simply wish to say hello. :)

[edit] Welcome from an old friend

Dear Stephen,

great to see you on here. Thanks for the ammendments... cobbled the article together from my knowledge of UFMCC. Great to see other articles appearing on Wikipedia now. Ace! Do you mind if I wikify some of your articles further? Davidkinnen 08:46, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Naming conventions

I really love all your work on GLBT theology and religion articles, especially the Metropolitan Community Church and affiliated persons. Just a note that Wikipedia naming conventions don't allow for the use of formal titles, such as "Rev" or "Dr" in the name of the article. I have moved several that you created. Thanks again! EdwinHJ | Talk 00:07, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Metropolitan Community Church, Edinburgh

Moved the page. KHM03 20:50, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Your removal to link to Anti-"Queer" theology

I edited the page on "queer theology" page to include links to (DR) Rembert S. Truluck's page, and to truthsetsfree.net, another "gay christian" site.
In the process, I also added a religion-stub for (Dr) Truluck.
And it was also me who added the link to the Anti-"queer theology" site, which you removed, siting reason that it was "not about this debate".

I protest that your deletion was a POV-inspired deletion.
My edit's, I suggest, where balanced, NPOV - two supporting the idea of "queer theology", one against, and the creation of an NPOV page, which I contend added to this category, as Dr. Truluck is an prominent "gay christian".

How can you justify that a link to a page giving the other side of the argument is "not about this debate"?
(It's not as if I edited the article to include the stuff in the counter argument - I merely added a link!)


I would suggest that the fact that you are a member of the MCC (which, I presume is a "gay christian" church), adds weight to my argument that your deletion was a partisan, POV-inspired deleltion.

As I understand it, Wikipedia is an "encyclopedia", this means that pages are not "adverts" for one any particular idea, they must attempt to give some degree of balanced analysis.

The idea is that any user, of whatever "persuasion", might look up this page, read the main tenets of the article, and then have an opportunity to see other related ideas, including arguments against.

For example, if someone looks up the article on Stalin, he/she may wish to link to some external pages which are pro Stalin or anti Stalin.


I hope you will respond to my post, otherwise we may get into a rather silly add/delete cycle.


BTW, I put "queer theology" and "gay christian" in quotes as these are debated labels - it is my understanding that not every "gay" person would label themselves as "queer" - I notice that more and more we see the tag "LGBTQ" rather than "LGBT", making a distinction between queer and gay - I certainly haven't put these phrases in quotes to suggest any disparagement of these "labels".


BTW (2), I notice that you say in an earlier message that Dr's and Rev's should be removed - I'm not familiar with the justification for this. Can you explain?

CPMCE 01:17, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reply re. removal of link

--Sjharte 10:50, 27 November 2005 (UTC) Hi.

I think you must have misread something on the use of "Rev" and "Dr" etc - that was comment directed at me by someone else.

The article on Queer Theology is supposed to be just that - an explanation of the existence and devlopment of this branch of theology. The pro/anti gay debate is real and valid - my suggestion was that it not take place in this article as it would overwhlem it. Perhaps a "see also" link to those many otehr parts of wikipedia where that debate takes place - and I have made this change

The term "Queer" is a controversial one in many areas but it is the "term of art" for this type of theological by teh academic practitioners of it. Accordinly, I have made this point in the article but again would suggest that the validity or otherwise of the term "queer" is better handled in the queer section rather than repeated here. I have made refernece to this is the "see also" section.

The original links that I put in were to a US major acedemic institution that studied queer theologya nd to an online Queer Theology jounal. Both totally in point. I did not seek to put in links to gay ministries or affirming congregations (what you called "gay churches") - others did that. I would personal prefer to see those links to go too so that this piece could focus solely on discussion of this branch of theology and leave other issues to otehr posts.

In conclusion, I hope that you wills ee that i have not saw myself as trying to enforce my personal POV but instead tried to keep the article clean and relevant as it grows.

[edit] Join the Wikipedian communities

Thanks for your reply. I take your point, and will not get into a "silly add/delete cycle" as threatened! As a compromise, I added this debate to the discussion page of the "queer theology" page.

I don't know if your interested, but IMHO your user page could be expanded, tarted up a bit! For example, you may wish to add yourself to the list of users in Scotland... Category:Wikipedians in Scotland|Sjharte Category:Wikipedians_in_the_United_Kingdom|Sjharte and you may wish to add your name to the list of LGBT Wikipedians : Category:LGBT Wikipedians|Sjharte

Just click on edit and copy the releveant text above onto your user page, putting it in double square brackets: [[]]!

Oh, and BTW, don't type so fast! Avoid typos! CPMCE 17:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Winnie Ewing

I noticed that you editted Winnie Ewing's article to add her to the 'LGBT rights opposition' category and added text stating "joined her son Fergus Ewing in opposing repeal [of section 2A]". I was suprised to hear this and I checked the details of the vote [1] and found that both Ewings (not including Margaret) abstained rather than opposed. I see that the wording simply means "did not vote for repeal" but I this gives the notion that the Ewings voted against as opposed to not voting at all. I have changed the article to note this and have removed the 'LGBT rights opposition' category as many MSPs effectively abstained by not being present for the vote (such as Donald Dewar) and it is unfair to lump them in with the Tories or Souter. Jizz 12:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GBT Rights Opposition Category/Pope John Paul II

I have only edited that page once and am not aware of any LGBT issue regarding the edit I made. -Drdisque 23:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pages listed on Categories for deletion

Discussion on CFD - proposal to merge all subcats of Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from Scottish constituencies up into the main cat. Relevant categories which would be deleted are:

I think that this is a rather important discussion for editors interested in Scotland-related articles, especially Scottish politics and Scottish biographical articles (particularly local history). Please have a read and ponder, and contribute to the debate if you like. Thanks. --Mais oui! 18:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

It would also be relevant in this context to consider the discussions in the parent category for the UK parliament: Category talk:British MPs. I find it regrettable that Mais oui! has engaged in a restructuring of that category without entering into the discussions there. --BrownHairedGirl 18:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category of "women writers" under review for reinstatement

Hi! I hope you will pardon this notice, but the category "women writers" was recently deleted and is now up for deletion review. I noticed that you commented on an earlier discussion about "women" as a qualifier in categories and thought that you might like to know about the current discussion. scribblingwoman 16:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/j/h/User_talk%7ESjharte_bef6.html"