User talk:Pastordavid/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Pilate's wife

Does protection seem called for to you on the above article? John Carter (talk) 16:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I can see maybe putting in a say four day block so that discussion can take place on the talk page before any further changes. And I am checking a few sources myself as well. Can't find anything right off in Neutestamentlicheapokryphen, but I'm doing a more thorough look-see there before checking Analecta Bollandiana and a few others. But a cool-down lock might work best. John Carter (talk) 17:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

PS I took the initiative of setting up a list of how we can reach a consensus on the article's finalized state. When you have time, feel free to chime in. Ecoleetage (talk) 18:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I was unaware that you filed for Editor Assistance, and I am glad that you did. Also, my filing with the 3RR page did result in the page protection for the article [[1]]. Be well and thanks. Ecoleetage (talk) 20:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• You were missed this past week on the Mrs. P. page (I hope you are not angry over what transpired). Incredibly, I was able to build consensus with our Dutch friend and I think the current article looks great (I also shared those sentiments with him). I put it up for WP:GA consideration, because I feel so strongly about it. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I am glad that you liked the Mrs. P. article. I can understand the problem with WP-related stress. This past week, I've constantly come across people who were insulting to me on WP. People don't think twice when making comments, and I took umbrage at what I saw as rude and condescending remarks. Also, one of the editors who adopted me promised to give me a barnstar for the work I've done to date, and then reneged on his word, which I found hurtful (very few people bother to say "Thank you" or "Job well done" around here). If this kind of abuse continues, I might dump the whole thing and find other stuff to do. Ecoleetage (talk) 20:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

FYI on DYK

Rather than burden you with complaints, I wanted to share something that made my happy. I thought you would be interested/happy that I received my first Did You Know citation: [[2]]. Cheers! Ecoleetage (talk) 21:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello Pastor David!!

I spend some time monitoring the recent changes for the lutheran wiki project. An anon has been deleting a big section of Book of Concord. I keep restoring the article but he keeps deleting it. Also another wiki user posted on my talk page about it being a banned user. Thank you!! I just thought you would like to know--Npnunda (talk) 01:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow!! That was fast thanks!!--Npnunda (talk) 01:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

From one Pastordavid to another

Hello, good friend, I like the manner that the Wiki-Lutheran project is going. I am glad that the tension of a year ago around a certain Luther citation that I used has passed, so we can get down to business of making a fine source of information to the world! I am glad that you are an administrator! Thank you for semi-protecting the Book of Concord article. If the editor is banned--and this editor was banned for many good reasons--he should not be editing here. I wonder how it is possible to change IP addresses.--Drboisclair (talk) 15:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		I herewith award this barnstar to user:Pastordavid for his sterling service to Wikipedia and its WikiProject Lutheranism Collaboration. Thanks for your careful work to build up and not to tear down (2 Cor. 13:10) Drboisclair (talk) 15:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:EAR spillover

Hi there, Would it be appropriate for me to ask you to consider speedily closing the Blue Falcon AfD, perhaps as a redirect? I think the groundwork is laid. Apologies if that's a terrible faux pas. --AndrewHowse (talk) 17:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks much. Had Ron John just put his content on another page then he might have had a warmer reception. --AndrewHowse (talk) 17:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments sought

Hi, Looking for the response for a request for assistance:: A response has been posted to your request for editor assistance. Pastordavid (talk) 14:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe archived? Thanks! Charles Havranekc (talk) 14:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Mrs. Pilate Gets GA Status

Hey, I just found out that Pontius Pilate's wife received WP:GA status! How can we promote that on the WikiProject Saints page?

If I wasn't a big bully, I could actually cry based on the stress and grief I got in trying to push that damn article along. I am happy that my persistence paid off, but I genuinely wish someone along the line could've said "Thank you, Eco, for believing in this." Oh well, on to other conquests. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to be rude, but I would've been happy if you sort of left your comment at "well done." The very, very last thing I desire is criticism (constructive or otherwise) -- I seem to be getting a lot of it lately, albeit with a problem. The past few days, I seem to be encountering too many people who may have very good intentions, but somehow aren't quite as tactful as they could be. Some come barging into my Talk Page belittling my efforts, others openly question me in discussions, others talk about me openly in other people's Talk Pages. I have relatively little experience with online communities, so I am being off-guard by what I see as curious behavior. Lately, I really feel that everyone is on my case and no one likes or respects me. Or maybe I am wrong? (It has happened on occasion!). Ecoleetage (talk) 20:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand that many people have very good intentions, so I shouldn't fault them. Of course, people who call me a "nuisance" and call my opinions "ignorant" (that was an Admin, no less!) don't strike me as being helpful. Maybe part of the problem is mine -- English is not my primary language (I am Portuguese). It is easier for me to communicate by speaking -- I am trying to use WP to improve my writing. However, I am afraid that I am missing a great many nuances in the language, which can create endless confusion (though it would make a great sitcom). Oh, as an FYI -- our Dutch friend from the Mrs. Pilate article just got blocked for a revert war on another article. It reminds me of that refrain from the old anti-war folk song: When will they ever learn? When will they ever learn? Ecoleetage (talk) 12:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

You know, I am often surprised that you don't hit me on the head with a shovel, considering that I am not (admittedly) the easiest person to know. I know it is not a Christian honour, per se, but I thought you deserved this for putting up with me (and a few other personalities that trek through Wikipedia's digital hallways):

		Zen Garden Award for Infinite Patience
		For the patience and wisdom that spans continents and cultures. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Because, quite frankly, you are appreciated. Thank you for being you! Ecoleetage (talk) 00:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

New article with redirects from the two former articles

I would so appreciate it if you took a look at what I have done to two separate articles formal principle and material principle. I have combined them into Formal and material principles of theology. They need to be in dialectical tandem, so that is why I did what I did. Your kind review and editing would be so helpful.--Drboisclair (talk) 20:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

ZordZapper redux

Hello again! I am sorry to bother, but I wanted to get your input on something. Last year, you were kind enough to unblock a problematic editor who was willing to change his ways if someone was willing to help him out. I've recently come across another problematic editor who doesn't seem to be getting very much support. The facts of the case are here: [3]. What I would like to know is whether you would be willing to extend the kindness you showed last year to ZordZapper to this individual if I offered to work with him/adopt him/get him into shape? I believe this editor is being punished when he should be assisted, and the only way I can help him is if he can contribute without limitations on his editorial access. Thanks for your consideration. Ecoleetage (talk) 21:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

From my perspective, the editor in question has received absolutely nothing in the way of help or support. I believe this editor has not received a fair shake, and I have very serious reservations that his case has been handled in a manner that inflamed the situation rather than resolved it. (I hestitate to go into depth or name names, given that these pages have multiple eyes beyond ours.) A great many people appear to actively dislike this editor, for no reason that is clear to me (I've communicated with him and found him intelligent and pleasant, and very eager to make a worthwhile contribution -- he just lacks direction). I believe this editor can be helped, much like the one you gave aid to earlier. If not in lifting the block, then at least in showing a degree of compassion and a willingness to forgive by reducing its severity from a month to two weeks. Thanks! Ecoleetage (talk) 23:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

PS I should add that I am well aware of the editor's past problems, and I do not condone or defend anything that he did. What concerns me, however, is that absolutely no effort has been made this year by any person to work with him. In the past five months, I've seen no evidence of any person trying to step forward to direct him -- there's been plenty of berating, but no support. The fact I was the only person to show genuine sympathy for his injury (as per his talk page), I believe, leaves me very sad. I am interested in his future, whereas too many people seem fixated in his past. I was hoping to work with him on creating content, which is why I raised the subject with you about trying to turn a new page with this young man. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the suggestion, which is wonderful in concept, but I cannot see that working. I've had my own difficulty with the blocking admin -- I have twice told him to stay off my Talk Page, and he has already followed me to different Talk Pages to make me the subject of unpleasant conversation (don't be surprised if he turns up here). I genuinely believe that this matter has metastasized with alarming depth while the young man being blocked is getting absolutely no help whatsoever. (Honestly, when I got involved in Wikipedia, I expected something very, very different than this!). Ecoleetage (talk) 01:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Theology group

Go right ahead. I've also informed the people in the Philosophy Project just now about the group, proposing it as a joint task force. I think it's all but certain to meet the 5 person threshold quickly, so there's shouldn't be any objections from anyone. And the content would definitely benefit from more focused attention. John Carter (talk) 17:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Much thanks

I humbly thank you for awarding me the dignified barnstar of diligence. I am encouraged that we are doing what I consider to be a good job here to present our denomination to the world. I was saddened over the weekend when I attended an ordination of the son of a good friend. Two of his professors from his college were also at the ordination, and they said that Wikipedia was not considered too highly by their collegues. I would say, though, that we Wikipedians have made great strides toward quality control. Someday we will garner a better reputation. Brother David, thank you so much, and God bless always.--Drboisclair (talk) 11:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Daynal

Dear Pastordavid,

Would you find it more comfortable discussing here the public display of what is described as an 'archived' page where your charge of Sockpuppetry was sustained against user:Daynal? If the page should be really archived as was the 'discussion' of the article that apparently offended your personal beliefs, we can agree to let this 'lie'. Gratefully, Rob Davis --72.250.232.242 (talk) 19:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, you ascribe to me sensitivities that I am afraid I do not posses. I am not offended in the least. In fact, the SSP page is indeed archived just the same as the talk page in question - both are still viewable by the general public, as shown by your ability to view both of them. Neither of them, however, has been deleted. You are welcome to persue deletion for them ... I would guess that asking at misc. for deletion would be the right place. I would not, however, expect the deletion of either to be likely. And if you feel, as you continue to insinuate, my particular background produces an undue bias or conflict of interest in either my editing or my use of the administrative tools, you are encouraged to file a report either at requests for comment on user behavior or at the administrators' incident noticeboard. Thanks. Pastordavid (talk) 21:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Dear Pastordavid, Thank you for your reply! It is not sensitivities you possess, but rather the appearance of such that is suggested by your interjection into what was otherwise an evolving dialogue addressing issues raised by the article in question. That dialogue was silenced by the sustained accusation of using a 'sockpuppet' to evade compliance with Wikipedia policies. Deletion is not what is sought, far from it, but discussion of the perception of wrongdoing is, and such discussion must begin with the 'plaintiff' that you are in this virtual 'case' and myself who would otherwise be the 'defendant'. Obviously, such legal descriptors are inappropriate in a private environment, but the appearance of due process is suggested by the legal terminology utilized in this venue. I would suggest however, that two human beings capable of penetrating mere perceptions to probe the truth of any matter would be far more conducive to the collegial atmosphere sought at Wikipedia than any 'legal' pretensions could realize. Are you amenable to such? Gratefully, Rob --72.250.232.242 (talk) 21:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Very well. The disinclination to dialogue sustains the appearance you otherwise forswear. Rob--71.125.97.151 (talk) 19:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

No. What it sustains is the limited amount of time I am available online right now given real life responsibilities. Patience. Pastordavid (talk) 20:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Gladly! Genuine dialogue is well worth the wait and work.--74.223.63.66 (talk) 21:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC) Rob

Rob, please have a look at this unblock proposal. Let me know if you are interested. Pastordavid (talk) 19:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello Pastordavid, Looks like a reasonable solution, but before we proceed, I would like to know a few things about Wikipedia that have been brought to mind by your original accusations using the term 'sockpuppet', once was a delightful term of endearing innocence, but now synonymous with deceptive practices of virtual sabotage on Wikipedia.

1. Is Wikipedia so preoccupied with fraud, vandalism, and malicious actions of mean spirited persons to preempt the need to inquire with any apparent offender directly before bringing a virtual 'court case' against innocent, unsuspecting persons whose only desire is to contribute to a culture where sharing is valued above all else?
2. What criteria operates whereby usernames officially representing organizations are approved and disapproved by Wikpedia?

Looking forward, Rob aka--68.238.123.94 (talk) 19:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Rob, there is a long history behind the policy of WP:SOCK, much of which occured long before I arrived here (the conversation about the practice begins really around the spring of 2004). Suffice it to say that wikipedia's visibility, combined with the easy accessibility, makes it prone to disruption. One particular way to be disruptive, is to register multiple accounts, and have them operate simultaneously -- quite simply, persons with multiple accounts (except for in certain, well-defined situations) are usually being intentionally disruptive - and so multiple accounts are not allowed. It may be helpful to understand the rationale, but the bottom line is that it is one of the accepted norms of this project, and to take part in the project on must be willing to uphold it. In regard to the "preoccupation" with such things, not that there are millions of visitors to wikipedia each day, and any one can edit wikipedia - and so it takes a dedicated effort to keep the vandalism in check.

As to "usernames officially representing organizations", see this policy page. In short, they are always discouraged, and beyond that are handled on a case by case basis. Another admin deemed that your editing habits were a bad combination with the username. The process would then be for me to unblock the User:Daynal account, and walk you through the changing username process. Pastordavid (talk) 21:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello Pastordavid:

Thank you for this as I understand well how security issues loom large proportionate to the profile of any 'target' and relative to the culture in which it functions. The username policy is understood given that 'defense' of integrity in the context of a civilization learning to be 'civil' will necessarily injure innocent parties, but case by case basis review, even if requiring lavish exposure over time for authentication purposes, is the requisite price for security in an insecure world.

Gratefully,

Rob--74.223.63.66 (talk) 23:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Natural theology

Hi,

If you can look at User:Dzonatas's contribs, it might help to make sure he doesn't hurt himself :) Especially, if he is religious, then probably you will be able to guide him better than any of us. Anyway, I don't know if he is right or wrong, but I think he is frustrated because of the astrotheology discussions. Thank you, Merzul (talk) 02:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

FYI on AfD

Hello! I thought this might of interest: [4]. Hope all is well. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words of support. Ecoleetage (talk) 22:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration request

Although I have not named you as a party, I mentioned you implicitly in my statement at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Dzonatas and Dzonatas made accusations of improper conduct against you at Wikipedia:ANI#Astrotheology, so it seems like the right thing to do to let you know arbitration has been requested.

Unfortunately, in difficult situations such as this one it is often hard to know which is the best thing to do. So for the record: I am not asking you to participate, merely informing you of developments because they already concern you. And in case anyone might construe impropriety in this post, I have never communicated off-wiki with Pastordavid.

Thank you for your generous offer of mentorship. It was a kindness, and from the little bit we've interacted I greatly respect you. Best regards, Durova^Charge! 05:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The arbitration might not happen; Moreschi has blocked the account indefinitely. Durova^Charge! 17:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, PD, I thought he was a new editor, etc. Also, I didn't think about the fact that you had voted delete in the AfD might raise his suspicion. I apologize for dragging you into this, thankfully, Durova has been quick in dealing with this. Best wishes, Merzul (talk) 17:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Deannacy?

David, since you're far more knowledgeable about matters religious than me, I was wondering if you might know what precisely one particular new user meant when he wrote an article about the Roman Catholic Deannacy of Sumy. "Deannacy" isn't an English word; do you have any idea what he might have meant? Thank you in advance, and God bless. DS (talk) 13:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Pirates of Dark Water Arbitration request

Pastordavid, I followed what you said exactly to the T, but the other person is still going on about it despite your decision. I compromised, but he seems to be the type that always thinks he is right. Could you please go back there and make another post. Thanks--StoneCold (talk) 12:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

New message

You have a message at User talk:Dzonatas#An apology to PastorDavid. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

About Daynal

I would be willing to help, and your conditions seem fair. Unfortunately, I'm very busy this coming month or so, so I can try to discuss things with him and ask for help from other editors that I trust. Also, it seems PaulBrook is looking into the case, and the user has admitted to having multiple accounts; so let's see what can be done. Merzul (talk) 22:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh man, I'm putting my nose into every possible conflict right now. Anyway, I will back out of most other stuff, and focus on this one. At least as my second priority after the Julian Baggini case, which is very serious as the subject of the biography is involved, but I will disentangle from the intelligent design stuff and focus on this ... Merzul (talk) 22:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Protestantism

I was thinking about reverting the edits in Protestantism by User:220.237.55.182 see dif but wanted to see what you thought. Dbiel ^(Talk) 20:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

There look to be a series of these, and they are certainly non-nuetral POV edits. Would you be willing to go through and undo them? It would certainly be appropriate. Pastordavid (talk) 20:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

above reply copied from my talk page. I will attempt to work on it in the next few days. Thanks for your input. Dbiel ^(Talk) 13:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Requesting help with Antiochian Catholic Church in America article

I realize this article does not fall within your primary purview, but I would appreciate your help in protecting it from edits which are, at best, POV, and at worst, defamatory and/or vandalism, emanating from a suspended deacon-monk of this Church, of which, in the interests of full disclosure, I am a priest. Thanks in advance for your help in this matter, and if you have comments, questions, or concerns, please contact me via my talk page. --Midnite Critic (talk) 08:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look. If you would add this article to your watchlist, I would appreciate it. At the moment, the user in question has gone from striking anonymously on a random basis to having gotten a username; however, he apparently is not going to start an edit war at this time, which is what I was concerned was coming when he got a username. Thanks again. --Midnite Critic (talk) 18:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Talk:War of Heaven#Appeal for intervention

If it is not too much trouble, I would like you to express your view. Not many people visit the page. Lima (talk) 12:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

You're not trying to canvas are you? Those entries are not quite enough to convince me you are, so forget it. However, I will let you know that I put an RfCreli on the talk page to drum up interest so we might want to step away from personally notifying other editors lest it look like canvasing. Padillah (talk) 12:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I was not trying to canvas. As you can see from the list you made, I began with the two editors who were already involved, one of whom (as you can see on my Talk page) was until then quite hostile to me. To get more people involved, what could I do - since I did not know of the method that you have kindly used on the article's Talk page - but get some Talk links from my Talk page, starting from the bottom (the most recent)? If you look at what they wrote, you will see that not all of them have always been in agreement with me; but I thought that, in this matter, the more, the better. I felt sure that scarcely anyone would support the claim of the "owner" of the article to control the gateway to editing it. If one of those I contacted is the editor who has since attacked Sherurcij anonymously, I was and am quite unaware of any previous conflict between him and Sherurcij. Lima (talk) 13:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Saint Yared; adding photos

Hey there! I have not forgotten my commitment to the Saints project. I just expanded the article on the Ethiopian saint Yared. I would like to add a photo, too, but I don't know how to do it correctly -- I tried once on the Claudia Procula article, but it didn't come out correctly. There is a free image photo of the saint here: [5] -- what is the proper way to put it on Wikipedia? Thanks! Ecoleetage (talk) 20:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The book is copyright protected. The image is a medieval Ethiopian sacred art, and it is public domain. Ecoleetage (talk) 20:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

There is also the picture at the bottom right of this page: [6]. The text in the article is under copyright protection, but the artwork has been in the public domain for centuries. Ecoleetage (talk) 20:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Can you at least please point me to the page that describes how to put photos into articles? Ecoleetage (talk) 20:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I added the picture to the Yared article. I hope you appreciate the expansion to this Saints article. You may not realise this, but a large percentage of my offline work involves intellectual property. Whatever my shortcomings in sticking stuff into Wikipedia, I know my way around copyright laws and I would never put anything into publication that is copyright protected. Ecoleetage (talk) 20:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)