User talk:Topsaint

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Comments by other users 2 Duplicate images uploaded 3 Image:Church Genealogy of Revival Centres International.png listed for deletion 4 Vanity link? 5 NZFC 2007-08

[edit] Comments by other users

Thanks for updating the RCI site - I had mainly been holding off doing that due to edit wars in the past, and just trying to keep the site relativly clean of slander - when I had attempted to put up that information in the past it was vandalised within an hour or so. Cheers. Floorwalker (talk) 00:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Duplicate images uploaded

Thanks for uploading Image:2006Rciconventionpan.jpg. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:Rci-2006-convention-pan.jpg. The copy called Image:Rci-2006-convention-pan.jpg has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.

This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone, and you do not need to respond. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and refer to 'my contributions' to remind yourself exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot (talk) 03:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Church Genealogy of Revival Centres International.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Church Genealogy of Revival Centres International.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 09:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vanity link?

Hi there. You took out a link that I re-inserted in Revival Centres International. The link to the Revival Centres Information page is not a "vanity link". It is a link to a group that has certain views about Revival Centres International. It is just as valid as, for example, including a link to a local environmental organisation webpage in a section of an article about a mine that touched on issues or controversies around that mine, provided the linked page set out relevant issues. That appears to me to be the case in this example. You indicated it contains "unbalanced and extreme" views. That may be so, but is not for us to judge - the encyclopedia is documenting the controversy, including the existence of those "extreme" views. One of the purposes in documenting the ABC interview is to help establish the 'legitimacy' of discussion around those views, as a national broadcaster can be regarded as a more authoritative source than an organisation's webpage alone. For these reasons I am reinstating the link. We can discuss further on the article talk page if you want.

As i flagged on the talk page, the article might be improved by consolidating material on controversies, and your cross-referral is good. The section at the end however devotes too much space to rebuttal and not enough to the concerns themselves. I haven't the time now, but will hopefully get around to helping on it in future. Cheers hamiltonstone (talk) 23:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

With your latest comments on the RCI talk, I completly agree with you about caic.org. I did try a little bit of background checking on the site, and the main author was a psychologist, but there is a lot of misinformation on it about RCI as well as other groups. The site itself purports to be an expert but a lot of what is said is hearsay - without backups or refrences to what is being said. Anyway I wanted someone else to look into it as well so it didn't look like it was just me trying to get an unfavourable link off the wiki. Thanks for your help, and hopefully it opens up more discussion and clarification of what is and isn't acceptable :) Floorwalker (talk) 09:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NZFC 2007-08

Huge thanks for all your work on New Zealand Football Championship 2007-08. Originally I'd planned to continue a week-by-week, small chunk comprehensive record of the matches a la the first ten rounds, but due to computer unreliability I've been unable to, and with the chunks noticeably larger I've put it off altogether. So cheers heaps for putting in the scores! =) Gialloneri (talk) 02:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)