Misplaced Pages

Welcome to my talk page!

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

Misplaced Pages is not censored, but my talk page is. Obscenity, whether vandalism or not, will be deleted.

Archives

Archive 1: Welcomes, Barnstars, etc Archive 2: RFA-related archives Archive 3: General comments Saint-Related Archives

Misplaced Pages:Version 1.0 Editorial Team

The above named group chooses articles for the various release versions. If you will note, there are currently comparatively few articles relating to religion included. I think that this might be due to having comparatively few active editors in the project who deal with religion articles. Given your knowledge of the field, I think you would be a wonderful person to help select articles for inclusion in the various release versions, particularly those articles which relate to religion. John Carter 14:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I will be glad to help out. I have looked over the project page, and there are a great deal of subpages. Could you direct me to the conversation in question - about where the discussion is going on regarding which articles to include? Pastordavid 15:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Release Version gives the basic format for the selection process, and Misplaced Pages:Release Version Nominations lists the articles that are currently being considered for inclusion in the next release version. I am trying to add all the religion related FA, GA, etc., to the various Religion project article lists, but that will take quite a while. I do note that Christianity, though, for all of its size and historical importance, seems to be underrepresented. As I go through the Religion projects, I'll be able to see which others are as well. John Carter 15:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Pennsylvania Ministerium

On 11 July, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Pennsylvania Ministerium, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Calendar of Saints (Lutheran) Featured List Review

Since you had previously expressed support for the promotion of this list, I thought you would like to know that I have renominated it in the hopes that this time sufficent a number of individuals will be interested in looking at this article and expressing thier opinion. Please stop by Misplaced Pages:Featured list candidates/Calendar of Saints (Lutheran) and express your support for promotion or constructive criticism when you get a chance. (Also, if you'd stop by Talk:Calendar of Saints (Lutheran) and make sure I didn't screw anything up in technical aspects of resubmitting the nomination...the instructions were a little confusing.) Thanks. -- jackturner3 14:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Clergy infobox

Looks great. Particularly now with the religion projects, that will be very useful. Right now I'm in intelligent design, and I don't know how many clergy are there, but I'll add it as the opportunity arises. And don't worry about the "crabby" Lutherans not using the word. I think there's a real chance that the Anglican category will have to be adjusted soon to "Anglican heroes", considering they commemorate an atheist, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, in their US calendar. I'm expecting to adjust that category probably Saturday. John Carter 23:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Pennsylvania Ministerium

The article Pennsylvania Ministerium you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. It hasn't failed because it's basically a good article, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Pennsylvania Ministerium for things needed to be addressed. jackturner3 14:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. References added. Pastordavid 18:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Pennsylvania Ministerium

The article Article you nominated as a good article has passed , see Talk:Article for eventual comments about the article. Well done! jackturner3 19:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/requests

I'm just letting you know that I've nominated Maximus the Confessor to be the "Today's featured article" for 13 August. Epbr123 08:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Eielsen Synod

PD I noticed you have done a lot of work on the history of several Lutheran groups in the US. I was wondering if you had any information on the Eielsen Synod, especially post 1950 thanks Smith03 20:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

thanks for your reply. I assume that is from the C E Nelson book? From what I have found there were 2 left by the mid 1980s one in Jackson MN and one in French Lake MN. The Jackson church (i guess) closed sometime after that, but I don't know if still would be consider a synod with 1 or 2 churches? Perhaps I will do some more research and write a book called the "Eielsen Synod: The Lost Tribe of Lutheranism" :) thanks again Smith03 02:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Judith Hird

There is the real possibility that the source was misstaken. Certainly, I can't find any reference to her in any of the other sources available to me right now, but I will keep looking into the non-reference books as well. Alternately, here I think it might be a matter of phrasing, is an ordained minister necessarily given the title "Pastor" in all cases, as opposed to say "Associate Pastor"? Perhaps in this instance she was the first individual to recive the formal title of "Pastor". But, like I said, I'll keep checking for further data. John Carter 16:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

For what little it's worth, the book in question was fairly well sourced. Having said that, I think your comments regarding the lack of differentiation of senior/junior pastor is a good one. Exactly what if anything that would mean regarding the existing minimal article is something I can't know. I'm going to assume that the individual in question is notable as per guidelines, but don't know if the two sources we have found have enough info on her to justify the separate article. If you think the article is unlikely to be significantly improved on, which seems reasonable, I would agree to speedying it as the creator if you indicated that might be the best thing to do. John Carter 17:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Afd

I like your improvements. I don't see what's the big deal about merging that into the Luther article though. It's not very long. It could fit nicely under a "In Popular Culture" section given most of the movies are documentaries and such. You see, what we're trying to do is cut down on list of films about lists because they have been getting out of control lately. I understand this was probably cut off from the main article to keep it from getting to big but really, the article is already really long, and I don't think a few more lines would hurt it. Bulldog123 22:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• I see. Well maybe Martin Luther in popular culture, if it doesn't become just an arbitrary list, could be a good alternative. Maybe even more could be cut from the main article then. Bulldog123 23:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Repost

Hrrmmm... Can I ask you what's this message you just posted on my talkpage? I have no idea of what it could mean. --Sébastien Leblanc 14:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't recall creating any page either named ], ] or even ]. I don't even recall creating a single page at all, except for uploaded images. Please clarify what this could mean. Thank you. --Sébastien Leblanc 15:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Reply

Okay, but what do you suggest I do? He's taking out content from the template for no reason.►Chris Nelson 16:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm soooo trying

I'm trying not to 3RR with this user, but he is busting templates. He continues to assert WP:OWN yet he doesn't understand what he is doing. I requested 30, and they suggested RFC, which I did. THe other user saw this, I have asked him to leave it alone until he knows what he is doing. This is creating display issues all over wikipedia. I have already asked for the template to be fully locked for a temporary period of time, and during the wait, he started editing again. I am violating the "word of the template" but not the spirit. Please understand I am not the problem, I just want some sanity. Jmfangio| ►Chat  16:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Great work

Pastordavid, you did an excellent job explaining the reason why Philippians 4:13 does not belong in WP. While this is a great part of scripture, I too believe that it is not notable enough for its own article. Great explanation! Blessings, Tiggerjay 16:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Template_talk:Infobox_NFLactive

Hi Pastor D -

I have tried to help out as a WP:3O by answering the RFC for the NFL template problem. I don't see how these guys are going to reach a solution on the matter of displaying the Pro Bowl years. Both editors have their backs up and heels dug in. Any further investment of time on my part is highly unlikely to swing the balance. I don't know what else to do. If you have advice, I'm all ears, but I don't see how this resolves itself without something more binding.

Jddphd 22:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

It looks like other avenues are being pursued ... and at the very least the article is protected for now -- they're lucky, looking at the article history I would have slapped blocks on them both. But, another admin is involved and I'm away from my home computer for now, so I think it is best to just let things run their course. Pastordavid 20:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I've done nothing to warrant a block lately, thanks.►Chris Nelson 21:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• Block us both, seriously. I'm sick of this. Please for sanity's sake - block us both! Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  21:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for input

I have started a request for peer review of a recently created article at Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Calendar of saints (Anglican Church of Southern Africa). Any input you might see fit to give would be very appreciated. Thank you. John Carter 15:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure thing -- I'll give it a once over early next week. Pastordavid 20:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you so much for your comment, Pastor David. Oh, and I notice you're a Lutheran. I am, too! Also, I was the founder of the Denmark Wikiproject, so you & I are common in that. Well, bye. Laleena 20:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Jesus myth hypothesis

Hi Pastor.

Tempers are often raised on the Jesus myth hypothesis page, as you'll probably be able to guess from the title. Was wondering whether you'd be able to go there and contribute at all - you're a committed Christian who has a history of being able to communicate well with those of different religious beliefs and none, so I imagine that you'd be quite effective in dealing with both sides.

I'm actually off on a wikibreak for a while now, so won't read or even know what you respond with, but felt I wanted to ask because I'm sure you'd do the article no end of good. TJ 00:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Gregory of Nazianzus

Is this article still within your plans for FAC? Do you still want me to go through it? Cheers!--Yannismarou 15:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that we nominate it. I've added some material a few weeks ago to shore up a weaker section. Some footnotes may need reformatting, but it appears to me to be up to FA standards.

You've been through the FA-nomination process before --- how should we proceed? Majoreditor 02:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I took the plunge and nominated the article; it's now an FA candidate. Majoreditor 04:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Great news. Gregory of Nazianzus was promoted to FA. Majoreditor 01:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to the 1.0 Editorial Team

Hi Pastor David, welcome to the 1.0 team in general and to the Review Team in particular. I've seen quite a few of your posts on WP, and we're glad to have you aboard. Can you take a look over the project and the reviewing FAQ page and let me know how you want to contribute? Thanks, Walkerma 05:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for assistance

We could use your help at Talk:Athanasius of Alexandria#POV. There seem to be some sources which indicate that Arius' difficulties with the church started with Alexander of Alexandria. Others indicate that his history with the patriarchs extend back to Peter of Alexandria. The difference here could be important regarding how much the content in the Athanasius article regarding Arianism should be structured, as the "Alexander" opinion would seem to place much more of the "credit" for the controversy on Athanasius' shoulders. If you know anything one way or another, or feel that you could help in determining how much and what content to give the controversy on this subject, it would be very welcome. I've contacted a member of the Coptic Church regarding maybe finding what the source of the "Peter vs. Arius" tradition is, and hope to hear from that party soon. John Carter 16:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Congrats!

		The Original Barnstar
		For fine work on Maximus the Confessor, featured today on the main page. Seraphimblade 08:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank You for unblocking

I really appreciate your consideration. I haven't checked my page in a long time, but it feels good to know that I don't have to make another account nor deal with stingy admins who rationalize Ryulong's actions. As long as a keep a low profile, I should be okay. In fact, I'm not surprised that Ryulong has come under fire and is the subject of this page. ZordZapper 00:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Daniel in the Lion's Den

Dear Pastordavid - a few of us are working up Lion to Featured status; being a heathen I have no bible in my house and was wondering if you could pop in the reference of Daniel and the lion onto the page - I'm also keeping an eye on Cultural depictions of lions so any other biblical refs you thought of as worth including as appropriate there would be much appreciated. I like the idea of a big warm and fuzzy collaboration which has had input from all sorts of folk lately. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Triple Crown

Your Majesty, it gives me great pleasure to bestow the Triple Crown in recognition of your contributions to Misplaced Pages. May you wear them well. Durova 21:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Bible chapters

I'd like your opinion on the notability of individual bible chapters--I've made an argument at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/1 Corinthians 14 (2nd nomination) and I'd like to know if you think it can really be supported--I'm talking from general knowledge only. DGG (talk) 06:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Just Saying Hi

I can't belive I've never found your user page before. Very nice to "meet" you, and Wow! you've done some good work here. Cjoshuav 00:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back!

Glad to see you back. I hope and pray whatever concerns have kept you busy are resolved satisfactorily soon. And no one can be faulted for unpredictable events, so don't say anything's your "fault", OK? Even forgetting signatures. I did that once today myself, and I don't have the excuse you do. John Carter 21:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

"Resolved" probably isn't the right word - my first child (a beautiful baby girl) was born in September. Everything is very good - fantastic even - I just needed to take a break toward the end of the pregnancy until she was born. Just making a little joke about my prolonged, and unexplained, absence. But thank you for the words of welcome - it will be good to get back. Pastordavid 22:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

More than enough cause. You've got several concerns to deal with, and sleep will probably be a biggie for quite awhile. From what I know of you, I have to think that you're among the better people to be parents I can know. And I don't think anyone can have any problems with you having your priorities in the right place. John Carter 22:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back from me to, Pastor. Congratulations on your new parenthood!--Cúchullain /c 02:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Congratulations and welcome back. I hope you're getting some sleep at night. Looking forward to working with you again next year. Majoreditor 04:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Daniel Estulin

The request to have the article Daniel Estulin deleted per WP:SOAP has been contested. | DUKERED 04:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• I must have been confounded, as the template was still there. | DUKERED 04:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for deleting prodded articles

Thank you for deleting Gellar field, at last someone got to it. But I just want to point at the notice to admins on WP:PROD: please don't use a delete-reason like "uncontested prod" , but write something meaningful, like using the proposers reason if that was a clear one. Going out on a limb here, Greswik 22:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)