User talk:Davidwr: Difference between revisions

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47

To leave me a message, click on the + tab at the top of the page. Be sure to add ~~~~ to your message so I know who you are.

Can you make this page, then?

I'm not a new Wikipedian..this is just my IP. Who am I? HAR HAR. No, seriously, though. Just put up a disambiguation page.

LOZ: OOT has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!

WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive News!

We are nine days away from the end of the drive, and it's been fantastic! Many, many, many days of backlog have been tackled, and over 1500 articles reviewed!

To start off, a HUGE THANKS to everyone who helped out with the coordination of the drive, and actually fighting the backlog in the drive itself. Everyone's done a great job helping out, no matter how many articles you've reviewed/

Remember to update your running total, on the drive page. This is the ONLY way that I will be able to give out awards appropriately.

Lastly, I will be giving out awards on August 16th. Anyone who could help me, that would be fantastic. Contact me on my talk page if you'd like to volunteer.

Great job, everyone! This Drive has been fantastic, and I'm sure that some members of the Project have definitely made friends by collaborating on the talk pages. Thanks,
GrooveDog.

Davidwr you left me a message about creating pages for the Pennsylvania State Senate and House Districts, saying that I should register before createing them. I can't do this for various reasons, can't I submit my articles through the articles for creation page like I did for the previous ones. And if the 55th and 64th House District pages aren't created yet by the days end I will let you know.

Thank You.

Shoot. I don't read help desk stuff very much (which I should, no sarcasm). If someone hasn't already, I'll go remove it.

WikiProject Articles for creation needs your help!

WikiProject Articles for creation has done a tremendous job in working at WP:AFC over the past 7½ months. Thank you all for your hard work and dedication! Together, we've made the submission process easier and more streamlined, developed tools to make the process go faster for reviewers, and cut the backlog down to a mere fraction of what it once was. Well done! As you all are aware, however, our work is not quite yet done. The project still has 10 archive pages left to complete, which include over half a month's worth of submissions, many of which have not been completely reviewed. We need your help to finish looking over these neglected submissions so that we can finally remove the backlog notice from the page, and put an end to the more than two year old backlog that has been a thorn in our side for ages! Participants will receive an AFC Barnstar, so hurry up and help out while there's still work to be done! Make sure to sign in on the WikiProject's talk page so we know who is involved in what promises to be our final effort to complete this goal. Thank you for all your help! - Happy editing as always, Hersfold (t/a/c) 16:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are receiving this letter because you are listed as a participant in the Articles for creation WikiProject at WP:WPAFC. To avoid receiving further notices, please remove your name from the list. Thanks!

Hi, David. Just to let you know, that Helen Keller photo is in the public domain. The change from 100 years to 120 years did not go into effect until 1998, and the 100-year term expired at the end of 1988, almost ten years earlier. This is a great fact pattern. I teach copyright law, and I'll use this as an example next time I have to discuss how section 303 works. TJRC (talk) 19:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright law and commentary pages I've read don't call out this exception... It's not an "exception," actually. It's merely that the law was different at the relevant time. From 1978-1987, the rule was (cutting to the essentials here) creation+100. Anything that was up for expiration in that timeframe played by that rule. In 1998 (might as well have been 1/1/1998, since expirations only occur at end-of-year), the law changed to creation+120. So anything that would previously have ben up for expiration in 1998 or later played by the new rule.

Did the old law cover photographs which were never published prior to 1998? Yes. Essentially, prior to 1978, unpublished works were covered by state copyright. Starting in 1978 it was all federalized, and for works like this, previously created, but not published or otherwise copyrighted, there was a special rule: we'll treat this just like any other work, except that copyright will last until at least through 2002; and if it gets published by that time, at least through 2027 (later changed to 2047). This assured at least a 25-year copyright (1978-2002) for unpublished works, and 50 years (1978-2027), later 70 years (1978-2047) for published works. Apart from that provision, they played by any other work's rules. Those rules were, for an anonymous work, the lesser of creation+100 or publication+75. Here, that's the lesser of 1888+100=1988 or 2008+75=2083; or 1988. Note that if this photo had been taken 10 years later, in 1898, its 100 years would have been up in 1998, and it would have been scheduled for expiration at the end of 1998; but the 20-year extension also kicked in in 1998, which would have let given it another 20 years, to 2018.

Please update-and-improve any Wikipedia and Wikimedia copyright-related FAQs.... I'd be happy to. Could you point me to them? TJRC (talk) 20:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Emperor's Room, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Emperor's Room is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Emperor's Room, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 03:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. I'm not sure how that happened :) I re-added it. Morhange (talk) 20:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not submit the actual blogs. Someone else put them in and I referenced them. NoseNuggets (talk) 7:30 PM US EDT Mar 23 2008.

I found a new reference for the radio announcers from a Westwood One press release for the record. I guess that's where they got the information on the blog as that is where many of them get them. NoseNuggets (talk) 12:58 AM US EDT Mar 24 2008.

How exactly does one cite a yearbook or a diploma? I could see why my word (or my dad's) couldn't be counted as a source, but in regards to sources, how exactly does one cite these things? Morhange (talk) 04:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yearbooks would be cited the same as any other book. See WP:CITE for info. A diploma is unpublished and probably should not be cited unless it is part of a collection available for public inspection. For example, President Kennedy's high school diploma may be at his Presidential library and available for citation. Many universities and some high schools and school districts keep graduation programs on file in a way that can be cited, talk to the university librarian. Newspapers may also publish lists of graduates, that would make a much better and easier to cite source.

In general, only college degrees would be considered encyclopedic. However, since he was a "home town mayor" his graduating from the local high school may be useful.

The purpose of a citation is so someone could look up the information if they were so inclined. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing the reopening of the discussion to my attention. My first inkling of the discussion was seeing the template deleted in the Apollo 11 article. I was shocked; this seems like a worthwhile template. TJRC (talk) 04:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the note. It's nice to get something well formatted in return - and I hope the Slashdot link I provided offered some insight into the possibility it is a hoax. However, I did not feel it necessary to include _that_ link on the main page for the article. (TPMS) Being an embedded software programmer, I understand the possibility of signal leakage, and what-not... so indeed, I can concur with the thought that this may be a possible "security concern". So, in all, yes, do restore that portion of the article when you feel it necessary. Sullivan.t (talk) 12:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I was planning to do this earlier but I forgot about it. They never served a purpose because they were proposals for splitting Line of succession to the British Throne which were never implemented. I've requested all the pages to be deleted per WP:CSD#G7. PeterSymonds | talk 07:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the remaining two were done by User:Danbarnesdavies, so you might want to ask him whether he wants to keep them. PeterSymonds | talk 08:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know all about Storm botnet for what its worth, not sure if that was directed at me for the check it out reference--I wrote most of it. :) I just added whatever I could find right off, to save everyone a possible time sink of an AFD. ;) I wouldn't mind doing another like this, if it's as interesting. Lawrence § t/e 17:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problems. I created these articles as part of a tidy up of article Toronto Islands, and in remedying some mis-links I found doing this. The content is not mine, and I have no view on whether they are notable or not.-- Chris j wood (talk) 10:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Recently, an article that I had written, David Gruder, was deleted. I read through all of the comments made and have made revisions, but have changed the article to David S. Gruder. Since your comments truly guided me, would you edit it or at least guide me in the correct direction as to what else I need to do? Thank you so much for your help.Traceylott (talk) 18:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really appreciate your assistance and ethics about the David S. Gruder page. I am going to get more secondary sources to add to the article.--Traceylott (talk) 16:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:100kgCanadianGoldOnPedestal.gif. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

I have added additional sources for David S. Gruder. Would you please let me know if these are satisfactory as references for notability? Thank you very much for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Traceylott (talk • contribs) 16:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, thank you, thank you for all of your assistance! I made changes as you suggested. However, if I mention the Political Intelligence Rating Tool, isn't that sort of spammish since he is using it to leverage The New IQ? Also, I have physically viewed his three awards--how do I cite this? I couldn't seem to find anything relating to this. Should I inline cite ACEP, San Diego Book Awards and Collier's websites for references? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Traceylott (talk • contribs) 17:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know about splitting out Edict of Turda from Patent of Toleration; that looks like a good idea. Kingdon (talk) 02:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It must be because I have more than one account (did not register email address and thus could not regain password once I lost it) - but as to be fair I will remove the medal and replace with one more suitable to this account. Thanks for providing the link which identifies how long I have been registered as I didn not know how to tell this. --Energizer07 (talk) 23:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Appologies, didn't realise I placed my last message on your userpage --Energizer07 (talk) 23:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo, Davidwr!

Thanks for the tips, how to use Wiki more efficiently and for your time and input! Never knew about possibility to discuss online, using Wiki generally for education. I think its great!

About the change, I changed "Later provocative subjects included, Chinese missile shot down USA aircraft" to ".. Russian aircraft/satellite." in Storm Botnet Storm botnet article, because I was cross-reading on the origins of zombiebots and in the original article on Storm Worm, which data is used at Storm botnet, the phrase is stated as: "Chinese/Russian missile shot down Chinese/Russian satellite/aircraft".

Following the link(9)@Storm Worm, I found this: "The first several spam blasts of the Trojan -- which was named "Peacomm" by Symantec (NSDQ: SYMC) -- came with current event subject heads, including ones claiming to include video of a Chinese missile attack or proof that Saddam Hussein lives, and bore attached files such as "video.exe."

So, i guess, the phrase "Chinese/Russian missile shot down Chinese/Russian satellite/aircraft" should be modified into "Chinese missile shot down USA aircraft" in Storm Worm article. Just for means of historical accuracy.

Thanks for your input! -unsigned comment by 18:51, 18 April 2008 213.196.220.153 (Talk)

Thanks, I've added a less friendly warning! Jimfbleak (talk) 05:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You raise an interesting question, but unfortunately I do not have a good answer. Since I do not know which way is correct, I went ahead and created a redirect from Cathy McMorris-Rodgers to Cathy McMorris Rodgers. --Kralizec! (talk) 21:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dont worry I am off wikipedia for good now on all my accounts!--Energizer07 (talk) 16:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have serious misgivings about deletion tags on album articles. These articles exist as matters of convention and convenience to the reader, and the (over) strict adherence to notability guidelines does people a disservice. Their content is encyclopedic, and if the presence of a stand-alone article makes you uncomfortable, you should by all means consider merging the information into the parent article. But removing the information through deletion (or notability tags, which are keys to deletion) is simply discourteous. Chubbles (talk) 04:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please, you're not trying to understand me. Or, trying to not understand me. The convention of creating album pages for all the albums by an artist predates the strict notability/MIRS sourcing requirements for every individual page. People put up album pages because it's convenient to have the information on a clickable stand-alone page. Think of it from the user-end standpoint (something we do precious little of here at Wiki). For my part, I think it's frankly worthless to think about whether an album is the subject of multiple sources or not, if the artist has a page, but I refuse to quibble over this minor matter of policy with people. What I am certain of is that the track listings of albums is inherently encyclopedic. If you find an album page which you wish to have removed from the encyclopedia, I wish that you would instead merge the tracklist with either a discography page or the parent musician's article, since all of the information on the album page should be recorded here somewhere. Chubbles (talk) 04:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard for me to tell whether you're being flippant or not. I guess it doesn't matter; do as you wish. I'm only one voice, and a rather lonely one on this matter. Chubbles (talk) 04:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, then. I will say that gunning down album pages is rather in vogue, and if you decide to take it up as a hobby you'll find little opposition, especially if you aim at demos and mixtapes. The policy changes have superseded the convention, and so many editors see themselves as "setting things aright" in doing so. I disagree, but like I said, I am in a minority. Chubbles (talk) 05:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He was born in 1991. Ive known him since I was about 7 or 8, and he was in a couple of classes with me in elementary school. unsigned comment by 04:08, 22 April 2008 Emmure 89

note: moved from User_Talk:davidwr/Jordan Francis davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's done, except I don't know if/how it's possible to change/conceal the edit history. many thanks Jimfbleak (talk) 06:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for putting the AFD closure notice on the talk page above. I realized this morning that I hadn't done it (because I redirected and got distracted by that) and went to do it, but saw that you had it taken care of. I appreciate you catching my mistake and fixing it! - Philippe 14:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Belgian Royal Family website used to have a section listing pictures were permitted for reproduction or something to that effect, but I can't find the page now. I would assume though, the right one should be the PD one. Morhange (talk) 21:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Davidwr, I am contacting you in regard to a discussion that you started about the mention of the Acting presidencies of George H. W. Bush and Dick Cheney in their respective infobox. The user that added them, User:Energizer07, claimed that there is Wikipedia policy to support the additions and thus should stay in the infobox. I contacted the user on April 20 and asked if he could point me to such policy; he deleted my message and did not respond. So on April 25, I reverted the edits citing no response from the user. Well apparently he was upset (see the message here) and makes it seem like I'm the one failed to abide by Wikipedia policy. He now has changed his story and says that it is cited material, so it should stay. Well I responded to him here, outlining my arguments and why his assertions are incorrect.

Any help or guidance you can offer is most appreciated. Thanks a lot, Happyme22 (talk) 17:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I appologize for removing the RFC template. I did not know that they were meant to be archived, and I now see that it was indeed a mistake. My sincerest apologies. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 05:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to nominate you for adminship if you're interested. Your dedicated management of Wikipedia:Articles for creation has prepared you to evaluate when articles should be deleted. Please read up on the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship process, then reply on my talk page.

On an unrelated matter, I suggest that you archive your talk page, which is growing too long for users with low bandwidth to load. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya Davidwr. I've fulfilled your request for the rollback tool. Please feel free to ask if you need any pointers (I'm fairly certain you don't) Pedro :  Chat  20:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya. Simple answer -yes! Rollback reverts all changes by editor X (IP or logged in account) on a given page to the last version that was by another editor. It does not revert all their other edits. So, for example. Vandal X alters a page. Good Editor Y undoes that edit. Vandal X edits again. Vandal X edits yet again. You rollback. It will revert to the edit by Editor Y. Another example. Vandal X defaces Cheese. Vandal X then defaces Wine. Vandal X then defaces Wine again. You click rollback on the Wine article. All of Vandal X's edit to Wine are undone, but the bad edits to Cheese remain. Rollback is very, very quick and efficent but it has limitations. Generally it is used when looking at clear bad faith accounts through Special:Contributions/Vandal X to easily hit rollback and remove vandalism fast. Hope that helps. Pedro :  Chat  22:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what the difference is. It's the standard practice nationwide to list municipalities by type, even if the difference is not significant. Nyttend (talk) 02:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check the Census Bureau's Factfinder website: it lists municipalities by type. Nyttend (talk) 03:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your advice regarding my first Wiki article, although I take slight issue with your "get in the real world comments". That's not necessary. Anyway, I'm not posting this to argue. I'm working on getting my 3rd party sources together to merit a worthy article. I have added one reliable 3rd party link regarding my discography and "notabilty".

Questions:

1. I have several articles written about Taproot Audio Design, but can't seem to find archive links (still looking). Would listing the Publication, date and title of the article suffice? Scanning the articles? 2. Would listing links to "notable" artists I've worked with suffice? I've seen this on other "notable" studio Wiki listings.

Thanks.

Taprootaudio (talk) 17:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dead-tree sources are perfectly acceptable. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for help. I'm not sure what you mean by "links to notable artists" but let's say your discography included a Beatles album: I would fully expect you to wikilink to Beatles and to the album itself. I would of course expect you to cite a paper or electronic source that showed you had a hand in the album. For non-notable works it's not required. Ask yourself "If Encyclopedia Brintannica came out with an unabridged encyclopedia where space was not a factor, what would be in their article about my company?" The answer would be "not your entire discography." Odds are, it would be half a page or less listing your corporate HQ, a brief statement about what your company does, possibly your officers, and if there are any, your well-known clients or projects. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• First of all thanks for finding the online source on some of my references. Secondly regarding the partial list of clients, I deleted them until I can get better clarification on what I need to provide. Links to CD and title w/ credits. I can provide this for some and others, people will just have to pick up a CD. Anyway, I'm married to the idea of having them there. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taprootaudio (talk • contribs) 14:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• First, you are welcome. If you have a partial list of clients, it should not be in the form of an advertisement. If the client has their own wiki page, put in a wikilink and nothing more. If they don't, put in a link to either the main web site for the client or, if there is only 1 project for the client, the main web site for the project. Sadly, if you link to a web site that appears to be a sales or marketing web site, it will probably be removed by a future editor. In the case where the main web site to the client or project is a marketing or sales site, it is better to leave it unlinked than to appear to be spamming. See WP:NOT, particularly section 2. By the way, on Wikipedia, being married to any idea other than the idea of building an encyclopedia is a bad idea: If your goal and the goals of Wikipedia are ever in conflict, Wikipedia's goals will eventually prevail. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Are we to the point of removing the cleanup tag? I don't want to have to go through another cleanup or marathon edit if it's not there.

Taprootaudio 20:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• Tags serve as a "to-do list" of sorts. In the spirit of teaching a man to fish, I recommend you read Wikipedia:TC#Cleanup then replace the existing "rewrite" tag with all tags that are still relevant. Also, walk through the article and see if there are any sections or sentences that need individual tags. Then, either place the tags as a reminder of what needs to be done or fix the problem on the spot. If there are more than 3 tags at the top of the page when you are done, consider using the articleissues tag to save space. If you do this correctly, you will become a much better Wikipedia editor. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Again, thanks. I've read through Wikipedia:TC#Cleanup and want to read more thoroughly. Your advice makes total sense. I'll dwell on it and edit later. On the subject of "teach a man to fish", I'm as green as a sapling on Wikipedia Editing, but I'm a hell of a fisherman. I'll return the favor any time. ;)

Taprootaudio 01:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I just heard about it on the news, unfortunately I had to leave almost immediately after I tagged the article. Hopefully other people were on the ball in my absence.--Hourick (talk) 08:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The source is here. He's #3356 (3351-3355 are Catholics, therefore excluded). Regards, Craigy (talk) 02:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Davidwr,

Thank you for keeping an eye on the Prestonwood Baptist page. I agree with your points in the discussion page and will just let you handle it as you appear to know a lot more about what you're doing than I do with this stuff. I'd also like to ask you to please take a look and keep an eye on the page for Jack Graham (pastor) as there have been several editors recently on that page making unverifiable and inappropriate edits including personal information that is against wiki policy. Thanks again!Johnb316 (talk) 19:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a multi-article wrapper for the tools on http://tools.wikimedia.de/~dispenser/view/Pywikipedia, particularly reflinks.py? I'd like to run it against 50-odd articles in a human-assisted-bot format, so that as soon as I save a page it goes on to the next one in the list. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The framework is a minimalist port of m:pywikipedia all the scripts with the exception of PDFbot came from there. While a bot framework many of the scripts allow running in "human assisted" mode. Another method is to use the bellow javascript as a bookmarklet, open the pages in tabs, click on the bookmarklet, and move to the next page as it is processing.

javascript:location="http://tools.wikimedia.de/~dispenser/cgi-bin/reflinks.py?page="+wgPageName

I should note that I will not be implmenting multi-aticle anything as this should be left to the specilized tools. Reflinks.py is being run every few months by User:DumZiBoT. — Dispenser 02:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping me capitalize the title. How did you do that exactly, I spent an hour yesterday trying to figure that out. And why can't I get the poster to appear for ATDHD? Tmuzzatti (talk) 10:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:MOVE for details on moving/renaming articles. As far as the movie poster, you have to put [[Image:thepostername.jpg]] where Image:thepostername.jpg is the image file you uploaded. By the way, instead of just putting up the poster, I encourage you to use the {{Infobox film ...}} template. See the movie Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace for an example. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Davidwr, concerning your remark on my talk page about the [Jack Graham (Pastor)] page, if you will review the pages of other well known pastors like John McArthur, Jerry Vines, and John, you'll find that their theological distinctives, such as this one, are included, but not every theological belief that is common to their denomination. Since you made MAJOR contributions to the Arminian page, I'm sure you're aware that the Calvinism/Arminianism debate is a hot one among Baptist, and Dr. Graham has spoken out against Calvinist many times. I had previously cited Dr. Graham's sermon where he publicly berated Calvinist (fact, not opinion), but the administrator for Powerpoint, wiki user, DirkMavs, removed the sermon so I couldn't cite the remarks that Dr. Graham said.Doublet89 (talk) 21:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi I liked your positive spin on the Joe Barron incident. I edited it to give it a little more clarity and to be sure that it didn't look like someone was trying to cover up what happened.Floridapeaches (talk) 03:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

davidwr wrote: Since you made MAJOR contributions to the Arminian page. I do not remember making any such edits recently, and I could not find them in the recent logs for Arminianism. I am not particularly familiar with or interested in Arminianism as a topic. Maybe you are thinking Prestonwood Baptist Church, which I did edit heavily during the recent news events surrounding one of their former pastors. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

David, you are so right - I had you confused with another David. Please accept my apology and thank you for your clarification.Doublet89 (talk) 17:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that you placed an opinion from the Dallas Morning News on the Prestonwood Baptist Church page regarding the Joe Barron incident. Do you think that it is appropriate to add an opinion here? That page also includes the opinion of a reader who says what the preacher did wasn't very Christian at all. Since this is an encyclopedia, do you think it's right to a newspaper opinion about what they think church members must think? This is an opinion of an assumed opinion, without any opposing opinions. I appreciate your attempt, but I think it violates NPOV and is non encyclopedic. I have not reverted it, and await your response before doing so.Romans9:11 (talk) 19:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a correction to the statement above...the sourced article by David was actually an "Editorial" not an opinion which is of course a big difference and gives it credibility as the DMN editorial board wrote this not some random reader with no credibility. If this was simply an opinion page than I would def agree with you Romans whether the comment was positive or negative.Dirkmavs (talk) 00:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dirkmavs you are a real troublemaker - if you'll follow the link, the section in which this is in is called "OPINION" It doesn't say "op-ed" or "Editorial", it says "opinion." If you have a problem with that, take it up with the Dallas Morning News. Good grief! I saw that another user on the discussion page also questioned the validity of the opinion, but I've asked David because I'm not as well versed in Wiki rules and don't want to start an edit war.Romans9:11 (talk) 18:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message on my talk page. I've replied to it briefly there, but suggest that, if there is any follow up to be done, it take place on Talk:Christian music in the "External links: advertising?" section, not on our own talk pages. Is that OK? (Changing subject a little: I like your recent reversion in that article to a couple of previous edits. Good. Thanks.) Feline Hymnic (talk) 21:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A (very) draft discussion on the policy on political parties has been started by me here - User:Doktorbuk/pp. If you can assist with this discussion, or know how to help me get this policy looked at, advanced, and accepted by the larger Wiki community, please let me know. Many thanks doktorb _words^deeds 19:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, if a white murders a black in a famous murder, and no new legislation results, and blacks decide not to riot, wikipedia should not mention that the killer was white. If this is not so, tell me otherwise.

Of course Wikipedia should not mention the killer is white without a good reason. Now, if blacks make a point of not rioting, then that becomes interesting. But if they simply don't riot, then "ho hum" race isn't worth mentioning. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thanks for adding the questions, I just answered them. Izzy007 Talk 22:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. I posted my views on User:Rlevse's talk page if you're interested. Thanks for the e-mail as well. That was incredibly polite of you; I wish more users were as kind. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've continued the conversation there. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't delete them, it's MZMcBride doing the deleting. See his talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, opinions on wikispace don't belong on articles. According to articles, Jimbo is co-founder and not a religous figure. According to Wiki Space, he is sole founder, is a religous figure, and has 8 legs and giant angel/demon wings. =D<3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 19:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]