User:Pastor Theo/Archive 2

Welcome to the second of my Archive Pages! :) Pastor Theo (talk) 17:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello
I am still new to wiki. And I am taking the whole responsible to construct the page about St. Peter's college, Colombo. The list of Old boys was originally added to its page but since the list is growing very large I decided to have it on to a new page ,'List of old.....'. I am taking information from old AGM reports of the OBU of SPC. And I can grantee that they are true and take responsible on all the information that I am writing on this page...Godfrey Walawage (talk) 23:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello! I am not doubting your sincerity, but the article in question runs afoul of WP:NOTDIR requirements. I might recommend saving a copy of the article offline, in the event it is deleted, and working to ensure there are proper Wikipedia links to the individuals cited on the list should the need arise to reintroduce it.  Thank you and be well. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I am new to Wiki as well. I have written a 'talk' message regarding the significance of one of my submissions. Please let me know if my article is now acceptable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valuesourcer (talk • contribs) 00:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If you are referring to Moderntailor, it appears your work was tagged with a G12 concern -- copyright violation. You may wish to revisit the subject ASAP and change the text to address that problem. Pastor Theo (talk) 03:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Can you help me again?
Hello Pastor Theo. I was just wondering if you would be able to get a picture for Mutumuna Falls. You have been very good lately and your efforts are appreciated. Thank you.-- The Legendary   Sky Attacker  02:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello again! I am afraid this is one area where I cannot help you -- my knowledge of that subject is nonexistent. However, there is someone online named Dr. Blofeld who writes a lot of African articles.  You may want to ask him for advice on that subject.  Thanks! Pastor Theo (talk) 03:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I posted on his talk page. Thanks.-- The Legendary   Sky Attacker  03:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I did look, no images on flickr, only one a google search engine. Dr. Blofeld       White cat 18:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Cape Verdean American
the last months there hasn't been any edit on this web page Cape Verdean American if visited cape verdean american wep pages on google yesterday and saw a few things of cape vereans in rhode island since if followed wikiproject rhode island i wanted to ask you if you could edit somethings on cape verdean american (Questchest (talk) 12:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC))
 * Hello, and thank you for thinking of me. This is not a subject where I have any expertise -- we have several Liberian families at my congregation, but no one from Cape Verde.  However, I will take a look at the article and see what I can do to help bolster the article. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of St.Peter's College alumni
My article List of St.Peter's College alumni was deleted...I add all details form proper resources but how can I make sure next time when I create this article that it will not be deleted. Godfrey Walawage (talk) 00:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I would recommend reading the comments that DGG left at the tail end of the debate. The problem with the list was that the vast majority of people cited were not notable, as per Wikipedia standards. I might recommend creating a new section of the article on St. Peter's College that lists five-to-seven of the most prominent alumni.  Good luck and please keep me updated on your editing progress. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Another picture please
Can you please get a picture for the song I Live for the Sun by The Sunrays. I thank you in advance.-- The Legendary   Sky Attacker  07:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not having much luck locating a photo. If I find one, I will let you know.  Thanks! Pastor Theo (talk) 14:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Guatemala
Thanks. I would make them all more detailed and referenced but I have a minimum of 60 articles to make guatemalan buildings and structures independent so I need to work quickly. I will be doing the same with the other Central American countries! I'll try to reference them if I can. Sure is amazing what is missing. Check out this site. Hit the coffee museum! Dr. Blofeld       White cat 18:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Relisting AFDs
When relisting AFDs, please take note that per WP:RELIST, discussions should only be relisted a second time in exceptional circumstances. Thanks! Stifle (talk) 13:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking the time to stop by and share your thoughts – your input is greatly appreciated. :) Pastor Theo (talk) 13:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Hupp 2, 3, 4
Perhaps I need to march off and get the print books to enhance the article. Her 24 hour Annie Oakley/Calamity Jane shoot 'em up defense of hearth and home inspires me. Edison (talk) 04:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If anything, she must have been quite a character! The discussion was a lot of fun -- thanks for a great challenge! :) Pastor Theo (talk) 10:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Follow up
What are your thoughts on the subject I asked you about before?--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 05:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I am extremely flattered that I would be considered. If you're ready, I am willing. :) Pastor Theo (talk) 10:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The Last Temptation
 Balloonman would like to nominate you to become an administrator. Please visit Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then [ contact Balloonman] to accept or decline the nomination. A page for your nomination at Requests for adminship/Pastor Theo. If you accept the nomination, you must state and sign your acceptance. You may also choose to make a statement and/or answer the optional questions to supplement the information your nominator has given. Once you are satisfied with the page, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so. If you decide to run, I would suggest reading this essay. Also, don't transclude your RfA unless you have a few hours to nurse it. The first few hours of an RfA people get finicky if you don't answer their questions. Anyways, good luck. Also, if you want a co-nom, it is up to you, although I frown upon having more than 2 nominators.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 02:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know if anyone wants to co-nominate, but I welcome support. I will get to the essay in a minute.  This should be interesting, though I can't help but recall Matthew 22:14 when thinking about RfA! :) Pastor Theo (talk) 02:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Or the same chapter, 7:7. :)  Best of luck, Antandrus  (talk) 02:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Lectionary articles
Ι know you. I saw your edits in numerous articles. I alos expand existed articles, uncial articles. The articles like Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus, Codex Alexandrinus, and Codex Bezae should receive FA in the future. The articles like Codex Ephraemi, Codex Boernerianus, Codex Washingtonensis and many others should receive status of GA article. So, it is nice to cooperate with you. Are you pastor? I was pastor, several years ago, but only three years. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 01:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am a full-time pastor in the USA. I didn't realize you were a pastor at one time. I am very impressed with your work. Keep doing what you are doing! Pastor Theo (talk) 01:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

You're on your own
GL, I'll be travelling the next few days, so you'll be on your own... but unless something major comes up, you should be fine.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 06:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Have a good time on the road, Mr. B. Pastor Theo (talk) 11:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

RfA Thanks
Hi Pastor Theo. I just wanted to thank you for contributing to my RfA. It wasn't one of the best RfA's held, but I've learned a lot from the experience. Sorry for sending you the message today, and not last week when my RfA was closed. I've been very busy the last time. Thanks once again! Kind regards,  Lourie Pieterse  10:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much! It was a pleasure to support you! Pastor Theo (talk) 23:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK for The Rookie (1959 film)

 * Thank you! Pastor Theo (talk) 02:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Shameless thank-!spam
Dear Pastor Theo,

I just wanted to take a second to personally thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which just closed as successful at 66/6/1. I wish you the best of luck in your RfA -- it looks as though you're going to pass! I'll look forward to seeing your handiwork around the wiki. Best of luck, Matt (talk) 07:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Matt! It was a pleasure to support your RfA. Pastor Theo (talk) 09:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

FYI
Film plots do not require references. Please see. Thank you. MovieMadness (talk) 14:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying that point. I will keep this in mind for any future film articles that I attempt to write. :) Pastor Theo (talk) 14:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

BQ
Could you look at the above page for me? I removed an entry that to me is offensive, and does not seem to have any value. There is a history tab and it seems to show that this is a recurring problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.149.110.134 (talk) 21:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This user is already under investigation for sockpuppetry and seems to have an obsession with either myself or this terminology (note the multiple WP:SPAs in the history if you wish). The history of this disambiguation page shows an obsession by at least two users (one now deceased) to remove a term they don't like. An additional opinion is always welcome. Right now it is 3 users vs a single puppetmaster (the above IP). — BQZip01 —  talk 00:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It looks like the typical sock that's obsessed with a single sentence in a particular article. Sockpuppet investigation, for the benefit of Theo, is Sockpuppet investigations/Grandma Dottie. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 00:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no idea why this IP decided to tap me, of all people, since I have no connection to the page. It is not something where I can offer any input. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I would guess that one of his socks communicated with you at some point in the past. Think hard, dude! The future of wikipedia lies in the balance! (I might be overplaying that a bit.) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 03:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You had some communication with BQZip01 on his talk page, so the sock could have come here just as a random selection from that page. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 11:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

your rights were changed
You is now an admin--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 01:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Congratulations. :) – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 01:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Super Congrats!  — Rlevse • Talk  • 01:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Congratulations! Had I known, I certainly would have supported. — BQZip01 —  talk 02:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And had I known, I certainly would have opposed. (Kidding! I was watching a Groucho Marx movie earlier, and I've started to channel him.) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 03:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Didn't he say “I refuse to join any club that would have me as a member.” Plastikspork (talk) 06:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * He did. He also said (or his scripwriter said), "Whatever it is, I'm against it!" Then there was the story he told about (literally) bumping into a priest, who said, "I want to thank you for all the joy you've brought into the world!" and Groucho said, "And I want to thank you for all the joy you've taken out of the world!" And he wondered why they called him "Groucho". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 07:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Congratulations! -- Avi (talk) 02:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Congratulations. ÷seresin 03:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Congrats! Good luck with the tools.   -  down  load  ׀  sign!  03:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Congrats, Pastor Theo! I always knew that you'd be an admin some point soon! ( X! ·  talk )  · @203  · 03:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, congratulations. I am glad to see it was a success. Plastikspork (talk) 06:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, all, for your support. :) Pastor Theo (talk) 10:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Congratulations. I'm sorry I stopped keeping an eye on RfAs and missed yours.  You certainly have my support and good wishes with the mop. --Rosiestep (talk) 13:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well done Pastor, I am glad that I stumbled into the RfA page and saw you were up and was able to support. Cheers,--kelapstick (talk) 17:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Rosie and Kelapstick! Pastor Theo (talk) 17:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have rarely been as pleased with the outcome of an RfA. DGG (talk) 00:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh my goodness! Thank you, DGG!  Pastor Theo (talk) 00:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Carol Goodwin
Hi. You deleted my article on Carol Goodwin because I "attacked her". I am her son, I was doing that for her, can you not delete that again? Thank you --Matt Goodwin —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rudichad (talk • contribs) 18:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello! The article in question was marked as G10 and contained text that appeared to be less than flattering. If you are going to write an article, please abide by Wikipedia's editorial standards. Also, you may wish to read WP:COI, which details problems arising from conflicts of interest in article creation and maintenance. Thank you. Pastor Theo (talk) 18:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Unblock of Subman758
Since you have unblocked this user, are you aware of this discussion on ANI? ANI -MBK004 20:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, he still shows up in CAT:UNBLOCK since you did not disable the unblock request. -MBK004 20:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I was getting there when your message came up. I suspect this editor was indulging in clumsy sarcastic humor, and he has already withdrawn the comments. And I will get to the category thingie, too -- it is my first day as an admin, so please be patient with me. :) Thanks! Pastor Theo (talk) 20:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * (Replying here to avoid cluttering Subman758's talk page) Congratulations on your adminship, then. :) I'll hope to see you around. – Luna Santin  (talk) 21:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * OMG you've been an admin for less than 24 hours and you've already broken the wiki??? ;-) --- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 21:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely hilarious. (Off2riorob (talk) 21:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC))

Welcome aboard
I thought I'd swing on in and also say "welcome aboard"! You handled the Subman758 case quite well, so many kudos for that. Regards Manning (talk) 02:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Many thanks! :) Pastor Theo (talk) 02:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations!
I am happy to see that your RFA has been successful. Best wishes! MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 08:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, Mr. Schmidt! :) Pastor Theo (talk) 10:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Harrasment
Pastor Theo

I feel that Adimns Bwilkens, & Baseball Bugs are abusing their power and Harassing me, and attempting to bait me into a fight. Baseball Bugs is accusing me of using Wikipedia to try and sell my image. I have NEVER offered''' the file for sale on Wikipedia. I have only stated how I had come to create the file, why I created the file, and how I eventually came to start selling the Image. If you ask me they are just full of SOUR GRAPES and I am feeling Harassed by them. I am sure somewhere, there is a rule that prevents them from doing this. This image never bothered anyone, until yesterday, when they tried to block me, they saw it on my user page.

I left the following message on Baseball Bugs Talk Page

"Why is it you think I am trying to sell something? Look at the files history.  Where does it say I am offering it to Wikipedia Users for sale.  All I have done, was add a blurb about the file, and what I do with it. NEVER have I offered it for sale!  See again USERS LIKE YOU Accuse me of doing something, I am not doing."

Please Help, Respectfully Yours--Subman758 (talk) 16:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The brouhaha raised by this is a self-defining illustration of why this kind of stuff is not allowed on wikipedia. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 16:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * However, I should thank him for unilaterally promoting me to admin. Or should I? How do you like it so far? :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 16:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Congratulations Buggs, I didn't know that unilateral promotion was an option. I should have considered that before my RfA.  I think it is quite appropriate that Pastor is partaking in a little Baptism by fire. :D  --kelapstick (talk) 16:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Meh. Compared to the stuff I deal with IRL, this kind of stuff is like a weekend in Atlantic City! :) Pastor Theo (talk) 00:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for the others, but I think Subman and I understand each other now. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 00:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "Pastor Theo". And if you tell me your last name is "Logy", I might have to send a plaque of locusts your direction. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 00:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * A plague of locusts? That is soooooo Old Testament! :) You are all good people and I am glad to have you visiting my page. Feel free to stop by any time -- the virtual door is always open. :) Pastor Theo (talk) 00:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, no, not a plague of locusts. What ya think, I'm God? Don't listen to those rumors. A plaque of locusts. Like one of those awards they give when you've served 25 years and they're about to lay you off. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 04:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * A plaque of locusts? Never heard of the expression before. Plaque, yes. Locusts, yes. But never having the two together. I thought you misspelled "plague." Ah, silly me. :) Pastor Theo (talk) 04:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That's what you were supposed to think. I seldom mis-tyep by accident. 0:) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 04:09, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Well done
I just heard the news. Congratulations on becoming an admin!-- The LegendarySky Attacker 03:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! The first day on the "job" has been fun! :) Pastor Theo (talk) 03:05, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi good to see you deleting stuff on the speedy deletion backlog! Have you rescued anything? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:00, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello! Yes, I have denied a couple of speedy delete requests. I was actually in the process of rescuing something when you tapped me to ask if I was rescuing something! :) Pastor Theo (talk) 12:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Gitorious
Hi, please reconsider the speedy deletion of the Gitorious article. In addition to being the next most popular Git hosting site after GitHub and hosting several high-profile projects, such as Qt and Sugar, Gitorious' server software is notable as it is one of the most full-featured open-source project development platforms (the code underlying Sourceforge, Launchpad, GitHub, Bitbucket, CodePlex, and other popular services is all proprietary), and is among the most popular server choices for running a Git project hosting server. I have revised the article to emphasize these points on User:Tuxcantfly/Gitorious. Tuxcantfly (talk) 16:24, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello! In its current state, I believe the article runs afoul of WP:RS standards and will probably either get tagged for speedy deletion or tagged for AfD. It would help your cause if you can add proper references to the article.  Thanks! Pastor Theo (talk) 22:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Question
Hello i am new to wikipedia too and me and my assosciate thought it would be a good idea to make a page about our band now that we are getting more and more recognised around britain. Why did you feel the need to delete it?

For reference the band is called two happy chaps and we were halfway through constructing the page when i found out it was deleted by you...

why did you do this? there are many bands on wikipedia who dont have their articles deleted, what makes ours so exceptional?

thanks Craig McAndrews —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.124.188 (talk) 12:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello! Please read WP:BAND to determine whether your band meets Wikipedia's notability standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 23:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Request for being administrator and a query.
Hi,

I wanted to know that how can I be an administrator and how can I apply for it. And I also want to that can I upload the image which is captured by me for an article which I want to write.

Thank You, Sukhoi30mki (talk) 13:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello! Please check out WP:RFA to learn more about the administrator process on Wikipedia. You will need more experience here before you can apply, but you are welcome to participate in the process in determining which editors can be selected for adminship. Pastor Theo (talk) 23:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

As you told me that the Saraswati International School article is being sent for AfD. I want to know that what should I do with that? I mean what's the use of that? Can you explain me briefly which I can understand clearly? And I can't understand why is it going for deletion every day. This school is well known on internet too. And also on Orkut. It has its own website i.e., www.sisvalsad.com ; still why is it proposed for deletion. The very first article that was written by me was proper and I didn't find any thing promotive in it. It had all the information S.I.S. (Saraswati International School). And it was not written with a sense of promoting it, it was just a step taken to let people know about it. Specially the people of South-Gujarat, India. I'm not interested in reading those huge policy's. If you can explain the reason to me in simple words, it'll be better.

Thank You, Sukhoi30mki (talk) 10:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello again. Yes, this may seem confusing to have an article's credibility challenged on a daily basis. However, there are different degrees of deletion review -- speedy deletion, prod tagging and AfD.  In regard to the subject, I might recommend reviewing WP:RS and WP:ORG to determine if the article meets Wikipedia's editorial requirements.  That was the reason I took it to AfD -- I was concerned that it did not.  However, some people who are coming to the AfD do no agree with me, so perhaps I was wrong? Also, I strongly recommend that you read those "huge" policies in order to understand how Wikipedia works and how you can best contribute to its content. Just take a few minutes to read the policies -- trust me, in the long run it will help.  Thanks! Pastor Theo (talk) 10:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

So now will that article of Saraswati International School remain on Wikipedia? I wanted the article which I wrote previously to be available, but there are only few lines now. Why is it so? Can you explain me? And whom to apply for administratorship, because I've experience of doing these sorts of job. Sorry for disturbing you every time. Now can you remove that tag of AfD from Saraswati International School article?

Thank You, Sukhoi30mki (talk) 12:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Please, you are not disturbing me. :) Let the AfD run its course -- at the moment, it appears the article will be preserved. On Wikipedia, anyone can edit the articles, so don't be surprised if the text you originally wrote is edited or removed.  In most cases, the change is for the better, in order to meet our editorial requirements. With administratorship, real life work doesn't really apply to what is required on Wikipedia. You need to be active on this project in order to satisfy expectations that you can handle the duties. Pastor Theo (talk) 10:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Can you tell me which project? And I also wanted to know that can I add the images of events which took in place in Saraswati International School in the Saraswati International School article? Sukhoi30mki (talk) 06:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is "the project" I am talking about. You can upload photographs, provided that they meet fair use requirements.  Go to the "Upload File" link in the Toolbox at the left hand of this page to read up on that.  Thanks! Pastor Theo (talk) 10:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

What about the article of Saraswati International School? When I logged out and searched for it to check whether article is present or not, the article didn't appear as if it was never created. Why is it so? And can you please tell me that how long will discussion for its deletion will continue. Do reply soon. And I also wanted to know that How can I become a candidate for the Wikimedia Board of Trustees Election ? Do reply soon. Thank You, Sukhoi30mki (talk) 08:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello again! The AfD debate should be wrapping up later today or tomorrow, and it appears the article will be preserved. I assume you are referring to a Google search for the Wikipedia article, yes? If that is the case, I cannot help you -- I don't know very much about search engine optimization.  As for Wikimedia's election, I believe you need to have a good deal of Wikipedia-related experience before your candidacy can be supported by our fellow editors.  Thanks again for your patience and interest. Pastor Theo (talk) 11:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

I'm was talking about Wikipedia. I mean when open the Main Page and type Saraswati International School in the search box, it doesn't come. I think the case is that it will not have been loaded properly or something like that, anyways I think it'll come after sometime. And yes, thanks for supporting me as a good friend. And answering my queries.

Thank You, Sukhoi30mki (talk) 13:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello again! Yes, I just typed "Saraswati International School" into the search box and the article came up. It appears that all is well now and the article is preserved -- my AfD concerns were dismissed, and rightfully so.  You should be congratulated for staying the course and advocating the article's presence here.  I am glad that I made your acquaintance and I hope that we can work together on future articles.  Be well, and please stay in touch. Pastor Theo (talk) 14:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi. How can I delete an image uploaded by me on Wikipedia or any of its subs? Do I have the right to do that? If yes, than please tell me the procedure for it.

Thank You,Sukhoi30mki (talk) 08:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Lithuania–Romania relations
Do you have time to peek at Lithuania–Romania relations and see if you can find any references? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for asking, but I think I will sit this one out. This is not a subject where I can provide expertise. Pastor Theo (talk) 23:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XL (June 2009)
The June 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Happy Bastille Day!
Dear fellow Wikipedian, on behalf of the Kindness campaign, I just want to wish you a Happy Bastille Day, whether you are French, Republican or not! :) Happy Editing!  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 20:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Merci beaucoup! :) Pastor Theo (talk) 23:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Question
You deleted the article for The Last Block in Harlem. Can you take it out of Google Search now. It is distracting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.38.132.137 (talk) 22:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no control over Google, sorry. Pastor Theo (talk) 23:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Christianity Newsletter - July 2009
John Carter (talk) 23:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Another one?
I'd appreciate a picture for Harvest Home (song). As usual, I thank you in advance. Cheers.-- The LegendarySky Attacker 02:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Done! I appreciate that you created the article! I always loved Big Country and I am glad to see this article online. Thank you! Pastor Theo (talk) 11:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * My pleasure. And thank you for helping out as always. Guess what, I created Fields of Fire (song) as well.-- The LegendarySky Attacker 19:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

AfD closure
The notability of the subject, were it factually based, would not be at issue, nor was that issue addressed in the AfD. Would you care to comment on the Verifiability of the sources, and the multiple issues raised in the AfD about their quality, as these affected your decision? Anarchangel (talk) 15:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello! As I stated in my closing comments, AfD is not WP:CLEANUP. Issues related to the quality of the references can be addressed via editing, and I am glad to see that efforts have begun to clean up the article. Be well. Pastor Theo (talk) 11:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

7 days at AfD
=7 × 24 = 168 hours. Please don't rush it even if it's obvious, or other admins will start doing so when it isn't obvious. There are sometimes last minute useful comments that occasionally result in continuations or even reversals. DGG (talk) 16:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Soviet-run Soviet-influenced Soviet-run Allegations of Soviet influence on non-soviet activist groups
The statement "AfD is not WP:CLEANUP" had already addressed non-notability issues, and I had missed it. I have made the point myself, in other words and with varying degrees of success, on numerous AfDs. Note, however, that I questioned, and still do, the reliability of all of the sources that were then present in the article, and the better sources have their own articles; there wasn't any content at all, and therefore nothing notable, once everything not verifiable or unduplicated was considered. Anarchangel (talk) 00:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello! I am sorry that you are unhappy with my judgment and my closing statement on this AfD. However, you have the option to take this discusson to WP:DRV if you feel that the closure was not proper. Thanks! Pastor Theo (talk) 01:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I won't be. Your judgment wasn't wrong, as it happens. I had't built up enough of a case, and I may never be able to. Richard F. Staar and the Hoover Institution are still more fellow travellers with the CIA than the WPC ever was with the USSR, but so far I haven't found the proof that peer review finds their product lacking. Even if I can't find any peer review at all, there's still the defectors and the general. Anarchangel (talk) 03:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Inner Wisdom Foundation
Fr. Theo,

I am not sure why you would delete our page. We are a foundation. We have our 501c3 status we are legitimate and we own our name. What is the problem? Our name is Inner Wisdom Foundation, Inc. Please help me understand why you would delete our page.

coleen@innerwisdomvt.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.104.193 (talk) 00:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello! Please read WP:SPAM and WP:COI to understand why the article was taken off-Wiki. Thanks! Pastor Theo (talk) 01:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Gitorious (continued from Archive 2)
Hi, please reconsider the speedy deletion of the Gitorious article. In addition to being the next most popular Git hosting site after GitHub and hosting several high-profile projects, such as Qt and Sugar, Gitorious' server software is notable as it is one of the most full-featured open-source project development platforms (the code underlying Sourceforge, Launchpad, GitHub, Bitbucket, CodePlex, and other popular services is all proprietary), and is among the most popular server choices for running a Git project hosting server. I have revised the article to emphasize these points on User:Tuxcantfly/Gitorious. Tuxcantfly (talk) 16:24, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello! In its current state, I believe the article runs afoul of WP:RS standards and will probably either get tagged for speedy deletion or tagged for AfD. It would help your cause if you can add proper references to the article.  Thanks! Pastor Theo (talk) 22:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello again, the revised article at User:JasonWoof/Gitorious has had many references added, of which I believe the official press/news releases from Nokia's Qt Software subsidiary and the KDE project are unambiguously WP:RS (I have also added secondary sources of those announcements). Thanks again for your time. Tuxcantfly (talk) 04:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello again. If you feel that the article can survive online, feel free to repost it. Thanks. Pastor Theo (talk) 19:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

for this diff,
I thank you. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 03:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

How can I delete an image uploaded by me?
Hi,

I wanted to know that whether I have the right to delete any image which is uploaded by me on Wikipedia or any of its subs. If yes, than can you please tell me the procedure for it in a simple manner?

Thank You, Sukhoi30mki (talk) 08:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Greetings! You can either tag it for deletion (go to WP:CSD and read up on that) or you can tell me which image you want deleted and I can do it for you. Thanks! Pastor Theo (talk) 09:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

I've uploaded an image named "Front View of Saraswati International School .jpg" but I'm not able to include it in my article of Saraswati International School. And also I've included two other images in the same article, but I'm not able to adjust those; so can you please arrange them for me? Because I'm not able to adopt to those things quickly. I hope you help me out once again.

Thank You, Sukhoi30mki (talk) 14:14, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello again! It appears that photo is in the article now.  However, I did remove the satellite photo, since there is already a link to it (and I fixed the URL for that link) and I rearranged the photos to run on the right side of the page.  There is a nice selection of photographs. Thanks. Pastor Theo (talk) 22:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

Thanks dude ! Can you set the photo of Statue of Saraswati Goddess at the top? Because people recognise S.I.S. by this pic. And how can I again attach that satellite view photo to the article again? Can you tell me anything through which I can attach it again?

Thank You, Sukhoi30mki (talk) 12:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Done deal, dude! :) Pastor Theo (talk) 12:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

DUDE! :) Can you tell me how can I again attach that satellite view photo to the article again? Can you tell me anything through which I can attach it again?

Thank You, Sukhoi30mki (talk) 12:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Dude! I intentionally took the satellite photo out of the article because (1) you have a link to it in the article and it didn't seem to make sense to have it represented twice, and (2) you have more photos than text and the article would lopsided with four photos. I hope that makes sense.  Thanks! :) Pastor Theo (talk) 23:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

Yes. Offcourse! It makes a sense .The first article which I had written was nominated for deletion. It was proper according to me in length. I can do one thing, I'll post the very first article again and then you remove those lines which do not meet those long policies. Is that ok? If so, then please let me know accordingly so that I can start the process.

Thank You, Sukhoi30mki (talk) 06:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

So you think you can Copy Edit?
Could you take a look at Peer review/November Nine/archive1 and give me a hand?--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I will see what I can. Thanks for thinking of me. :) Pastor Theo (talk) 00:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * NP... when I find somebody who enjoys that task, I try to take advantage of them when I can... copy editing is not my strong suit.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 00:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, don't think poker playing is how I spend my Sundays! :D Pastor Theo (talk) 00:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Might increase attendance. ;-)--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 00:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Articles for deletion/Barry Snowdon
I think no consensus here was absolutely the correct call here and I applaud you for making it. There is no consensus globally about what makes a local celebrity notable or non-notable, nor was there a consensus on what would make Snowdon notable or non-notable. Both sides had strong arguments and there really was no way it should have been closed as anything other than no consensus. Well done. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I spent a great deal of time looking over this and, quite frankly, neither side really sold their case.  I appreciate your sharing your thoughts with me. And, by the way, congrats on how your RfA is progressing! :) Pastor Theo (talk) 01:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As the nominator, I would also like to thank you for making the correct decision based upon the arguments presented in the AfD. I had initially thought this was a no-brainer that would be a quick and unanimous delete. I was therefore very surprised at the level of passionate debate to keep Barry Snowden in the encyclopedia.  No consensus is the right choice for now.  Astronaut (talk) 03:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Astronaut! :) Pastor Theo (talk) 10:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Request for copy-editing: Badnjak
Hello, Pastor Theo! The article Badnjak is one of the Philosophy and religion good articles. Since its promotion to GA status I've added more text to it. I try to write good English, but I'm not a native speaker, and probably there are places in the text that could be improved. I believe the article has a potential for the FA status (though for now there is a want of more pictures). Would you be willing to do the copy-editing of that article (you might even find the subject interesting :))? VVVladimir (talk) 17:03, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello! I will look at the article and, if my schedule allows, I will provide whatever copy editing input I can offer. Considering the article is at GA status, I think you are on the right track already!  Thanks! Pastor Theo (talk) 22:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Matt Sanchez
Very bad move there. He is still under a community ban and the community has not lifted that ban. That is why he was blocked. The ban is currently being discussed at Arbitration/Requests/Clarification. Until the ban is lifted, he is banned from Wikipedia. You should undo your unblock immediately. - ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here  01:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello. A few things are in order. First, I spent a good deal of this evening reviewing the full case of Mr. Sanchez -- I was unfamiliar with this situation prior to the evening's Wikipedia look-see. This decision came after hours of processing the information, and it came after lengthy deliberation of the facts. Sandstein is a highly respected admin and I do not take lightly the fact that I am second guessing his decision in regard to an editor who appears to have very few friends on this web site.  Second, Mr. Sanchez is not "banned" from Wikipedia -- he has been unblocked earlier in the year, but his status here -- specifically, the definition of what he can and cannot edit -- is murky and in need of being confirmed in a be-all/end-all manner that will not create confusion. He has expressed confusion on his status and members of Arbcom appear to share the confusion. Third, blocking is not designed for punishment but to prevent disruptive editing; there was no disruptive editing on Mr. Sanchez's part, in particular his concerns on the Matt Drudge article and the BLP issues raised therein. Fourth, your interest in Mr. Sanchez's case appears to be more than academic -- you were the one who demanded that he be blocked and you are here on my page within a half-hour of my unblocking him demanding that he be re-blocked. I will point out that Mr. Sanchez has repeatedly requested that you disengage from his talk page, and I would echo his requests. That being said, I will be keeping an eye on Mr. Sanchez's editing in the upcoming days, and I will not hesitate to reinstate the block if I find him to be out of line with Wikipedia's policies.  Thank you. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Why is it so hard for people to understand what "banned" means? He is under a community ban, regardless of whether or not people are confused about Arbcom's status. A banned user is blocked - that's procedure. Always has been. The community has not lifted that community ban. Therefore he should not have been editing, whether or not it was controversial edits is meaningless - ban = no editing, period. Shouldn't even be discussing technicalities. Community ban + banned + blocked = no editing is not a hard concept but people are hell bent on making it one. You say you will be keeping an eye on Mr. Sanchez's editing in the upcoming days, and I will not hesitate to reinstate the block if I find him to be out of line with Wikipedia's policies but that's not acceptable because while he's under the community ban that has not been lifted by the community, he should not be editing at all, even in line with Wikipedia's policies. No editing at all, other than his own talk page. That's what a ban is, last I checked. - ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here  01:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * According to his block log, Mr. Sanchez was reintegrated into the community in an unblock executed on December 10, 2008, by User:Daniel. It would seem odd that he is simultaneously banned and unblocked, no? As for the nature of the community ban, I will leave that to the good people of our community to determine what, if anything, Mr. Sanchez can contribute to Wikipedia. My input in this melodrama is limited solely to reviewing an unblock request, and I have nothing more to add tonight. Thank you and be well. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought you said you spent hours researching this?? If so, you'd seen that the unblock in December was for limited interaction (uploading images and videos only to help "blind people have access") and was set by Arbcom. Arbcom's stipulations and time have expired but his community ban hasn't. His Arbcom ban specifically stated that his community ban was still in effect. - ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here  02:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Your interest in Mr. Sanchez has been noted. Thank you and good night. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Pastor Theo. I believe unblocking Bluemarine at this point was not a good idea because most of the arbitrators commenting at Arbitration/Requests/Clarification agree he is still community-banned, and is thus forbidden to edit per WP:BAN, no matter what edits he may have made. Also, I find it uncollegial that you unblocked that user without first consulting me, as per WP:BP, or the community that banned him via an WP:ANI thread to find out whether there was any support for lifting his block.  Sandstein  05:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello! It appears we need to agree to disagree on this matter. I have already stated my concerns on the block at Mr. Sanchez's talk page, and I will have no disagreement in reblocking Mr. Sanchez if there is evidence that he is engaged in deliberately disruptive editing. Thank you and be well. Pastor Theo (talk) 10:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Mandeville Films
Even though this article seems relevant, it was marked for speedy deletion apparently because it was created by a "banned" user. Is there anything you can do to save it, or at least un-do the speedy delete? I know the formatting of the page seems a bit broken, but deleting it because of that, too, seems a little harsh... Thanks, Shymian (talk) 09:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that the article is relevant, and a quick search of Google News confirms that. If you are serious about saving the article, you may want to spruce it up with proper referencing. Thanks! Pastor Theo (talk) 10:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the rescue. I don't think I know yet what constitutes "proper" references, but I'll certainly try to dig some up!  I'll let you know how it turns out (if you don't mind, that is!) Shymian (talk) 10:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

HELP!! I tried to add the refs, but I don't think I did it correctly cuz now they show up as blank :-( Can you fix for me??? Shymian (talk) 12:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I guess I'd copied the wrong format earlier, cuz the syntax looked a bit different! So am I (as the editor) now supposed to delete the top box (saying that references are needed), or should you (as an admin)? Shymian (talk) 12:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I did it. In future, though, you can remove that box once references are in place. Thanks! Pastor Theo (talk) 13:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Life Block
Hi, I noticed that you closed Articles for deletion/Intuitive Counselling and deleted Intuitive Counselling; however, you didn't delete Life Block which was also included in the AfD. Did I do something wrong in the nomonation (it was my first multi-article AfD nom)? Cheers, bonadea contributions talk 09:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, you did nothing wrong. I accidentally overlooked Life Block.  My apologies, and thanks for bringing it to my attention! :) Pastor Theo (talk) 10:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/ThaddeusB
I wanted to take a moment to delivery a personal thank you (not "thank spam" :)) for your involvement in my RfA. (It passed 117-2-7 in case you hadn't seen.)  I have always admired you for the civil way you handle yourself around here, and I am proud to have your "A+ support."  I also admire you for the way the are proud of your religious views without shoving them in anyone's face.  I was very impressed with the way you answered to religious questions in your own RfA not so long ago and am glad it passed.  I look forward to seeing you around the wiki in my new role.

Thanks again, ThaddeusB (talk) 05:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello! Congratulations on your successful RfA -- it was a pleasure to support you. And thank you for your kind words about my input on Wikipedia. Be well and have fun in your new duties! :) Pastor Theo (talk) 12:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Sullivan County Legal Aid Panel
Hi Paster Theo,

I created the above article. While I'm disappointed with the decision to delete the article, now that I'm aware of Wikipedia's notability requirements, I can live with it. My question at this point is whether I'm allowed to "merge" the information into the Sullivan County article. The organization might not be notable enough for a stand alone article, but I assume these same strict notability requirements do not apply to regular article inclusion. Please let me know if it is OK. Thanks, --Pink Bull (talk) 17:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, Pink! Of course you can merge the information -- it would make more sense, at this point in time. Just make sure you have a good reference or two to support its inclusion. Go for it! :) Pastor Theo (talk) 17:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! But I don't really remember what exactly the article said and it will be difficult for me to reformat the citations again. Can I access this deleted article somewhere or can it be made available for a short time, so that I can transfer the information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pink Bull (talk • contribs) 19:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses in Nigeria
The 'Keep' result of the deletion discussion is not representative of the discussion, which has a more strong consensus to merge. The article assigns undue weight to the notability of JW activities in Nigeria with respect to both JW activities in other countries, and the activities of other Christian groups in Nigeria. The information of the article has already been included at Religion in Nigeria.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 03:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello! As I stated in the closing statement, those who feel bold are welcome to merge -- you don't need an AfD to take that action. Thanks! Pastor Theo (talk) 04:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism
Yes, I have a question as to why removing invisible text placed underneath a redirect like this and why removing a test edit from a public school talk page like this are considered vandalism. KypDurron1 (talk) 01:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I would also like to know why this is considered vandalism, which was also reported in the vandalism report. KypDurron1 (talk) 01:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If you ever receive a bunch of warnings on your pages that come with various icons (blue circles, red stop signs, etc.), always stop and ask the person who put that message on your Talk Page to explain their actions. That way, you will see why they felt your editing could be perceived as vandalism. Thanks! Pastor Theo (talk) 01:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Universe of Avatar: The Last Airbender
Might I ask for a brief closing statement? NW ( Talk ) 00:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "Per consensus." Pastor Theo (talk) 00:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * ...That's not really what I was looking for. I was hoping that your reply would take into account the fact that you weighed the different keep/delete rationales appropriately, and explain why you found the keep rationales of more weight than the delete ones. NW ( Talk ) 01:04, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I most certainly "weighed the different keep/delete rationales appropriately." The consensus of the discussion was not in favor of deletion. Your opinion that the article was beyond salvaging is, at best, highly subjective and is not an appropriate reason for demanding outright deletion. If you wish to merge or redirect the article elsewhere, you have that option. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLI (July 2009)
The July 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

blocked
You declined unblocked DocKino. In the United States article, he hasn't been too helpful. For example, in the caption of a White House photo, he removed a phrase about John Adams being the first resident there so now it looks like Washington was there, which is wrong and could get a student a lower grade if they wrote a paper based on WP.

I am not calling for extending the block on DocKino but have asked him to be more careful about the US article. I hope he or she will be a good editor. User F203 (talk) 15:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I hope so, too. Thank you for stopping by. Pastor Theo (talk) 23:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Jackson Davis (2nd nomination)
You closed this saying how the articles editors should improve the article, or otherwise it can be put up for deletion again. Though editors were already warned in the previous afd (Articles for deletion/Jackson Davis) that it fails our policies.--Otterathome (talk) 17:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello! I may be mistaken, but I don't see any warnings in the first AfD, which closed as Keep. If you are committed to deleting the article, I would recommend revisiting it again at the end of the year. Thanks! Pastor Theo (talk) 00:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The hint was that it failed policies in the first AFD, and at the time of my nomination (over a year later) it still fails policies and guidelines. So I'm confused why you didn't decide to delete it.--Otterathome (talk) 00:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello, again! The hint is not obvious, since it passed the first AfD with little difficulty. I closed the AfD as No Consensus because there was no consensus on whether to delete or keep the article; neither side made an airtight argument for their cause. Again, I would recommend revisiting the article at year's end.  Thanks. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Failing all relevant policies and guidelines is not an airtight argument?--Otterathome (talk) 01:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll be listing it at WP:DRV if you can't give any explanation as to why guidelines and policies don't matter.--Otterathome (talk) 17:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You have the option to bring the discussion to DRV, but please remember that DRV is not AfD Do-Over and the onus will be on you to persuade those gathered on why the closure was inappropriate. Pastor Theo (talk) 22:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Jackson Davis
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Jackson Davis. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Otterathome (talk) 18:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Help with deleted article
We've communicated in the past regarding a deleted article, Sullivan County Legal Aid Panel. You "userfied" the article for me, after which I redirected the content to Sullivan County. I was hoping you can do the same for another article that I worked on, Buzz Bites. I noticed this article for the first time on the afd log and thought I could improve it to save it from deletion. Despite my vast improvements the article, to my surprise, the article still got deleted. I'm hoping you can userify this article as well, for me to work on it further and establish its notability. I guess I'm assuming you can do it even thought you were not the deleting administrator. Sincerely, --Pink Bull (talk) 00:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Done! Check out User:Pink Bull/BuzzBites. And, wow, this product sounds really tasty -- don't tell anyone, but I am a major caffeine fiend! ;) Pastor Theo (talk) 00:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. So then maybe you can help me with the article!--Pink Bull (talk) 01:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Not to be a pain, but when you userify an article you can't just copy the content from the last revision. You have to actually undelete it to establish proper attribution. If the content is put in another article, the article has to be put back into main space with a redirect to the merge location, along with taking certain other steps. (See WP:MERGE and Help:Merge for all the details.) If it is coming back as a stand alone article (which I assume it the intention), then the edit history is needed.

None of this mattered the first time because Pink Bull was the sole author of that page, but that isn't the case here. I went ahead and fixed it for you, though, so there is no need to do anything else this time. Just be aware of it in the future.

Thanks, ThaddeusB (talk) 01:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, you are hardly a pain! You are a big help - thanks for clarifying that for me. :) Pastor Theo (talk) 01:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

re: Barnstar
I wanted to take a moment and say "Thank you very much for the barnstar." It is always nice to know that my efforts are appreciated. A little encouragement goes a long way toward keeping me motivated to work hard on improving the encyclopedia.

Thanks again, ThaddeusB (talk) 05:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * My pleasure! :) Pastor Theo (talk) 22:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Fall 2009 Meetup in Providence?
I'm trying to schedule another Providence Meetup for the Fall. Please drop a note at Fall 2009 dates? expressing interest and preferences for dates/times. --mikeu talk 13:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * September promises to be a busy month for me, but I will keep you posted if I have a free Saturday. Thanks! Pastor Theo (talk) 22:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, if you have a preference for a day other than Sat. just drop a note a the talk page. We'll likely schedule another later in the fall.  --mikeu talk 13:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * We're looking at doing the next meetup in Oct. instead. That will give a little more time to plan.  See: Fall 2009 dates?  --mikeu talk 12:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Barnstar
I hate to be the naysayer, but I think handing Mandarax a barnstar for his UAA edits was ill-advised. When someone has such a large number of UAA reports declined as being unsupported by the username policy, it indicates to me that they are using the process irresponsibly.

Was this a wiki-political statement? Do you believe that the username policy should be changed to the way that Mandarax uses it? If so, join the discussion at WT:U. rspεεr (talk) 06:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I've made about a hundred to a hundred fifty reports to UAA, and only two or three have been declined. Please check your facts before making wild, unsubstantiated claims. M AN d ARAX  •  XAЯA b ИA M  08:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Rspeer, you are a guest on this page -- please act like a guest. If you have concerns about a specific individual, please contact me in private -- do not hold people up for ridicule. Mandarax, I am genuinely sorry that my praise for your work is being spoiled in this ridiculous manner. Pastor Theo (talk) 13:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much for your kind response. Rspeer's mean-spirited note with its false accusation was very discouraging, and he's probably succeeded in driving me away from UAA at least for now, but I'll continue to contribute in other ways. Thank you for being kind, welcoming, friendly, and encouraging. Wikipedia needs more people like you. M AN d ARAX  •  XAЯA b ИA M  22:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I apologize. My note was inappropriate. rspεεr (talk) 02:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no damage done -- mistakes happen and all is well with the world. :) Pastor Theo (talk) 02:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, come on. When it comes to unreasonable barnstars, I certainly don't deserve a barnstar for this. :P Thanks for your forgiveness. rspεεr (talk) 02:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I am well aware of what you are doing on Wikipedia -- consider it a "career achievement" award! :) Peace be with you! Pastor Theo (talk) 02:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Rspeer, thank you very much for the apology! It is greatly appreciated. And Pastor Theo, thanks again for your support and encouragement. M AN d ARAX  •  XAЯA b ИA M  10:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * My pleasure. Both of you are welcome to return here anytime. :) Pastor Theo (talk) 10:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Princess Maria Adelgunde of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen
Pastor, an article I recently created, Princess Maria Adelgunde of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen, has been nominated for deletion here: Articles for deletion/Princess Maria Adelgunde of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen. Given your attention to other Hohenzollern-related articles, please take the time to weigh in and stop its deletion. Thanks again for all your wonderful contributions to Wikipedia! --Caponer (talk) 13:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the kind comments. I admit that I am not an expert on Hohenzollern subjects, but I will take a look at the AfD. Pastor Theo (talk) 13:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Pastor, thank you for your addition to the discussion. I've just added and referenced the mention of Maria Adelgunde's wedding from Confronting the Nazi past: new debates on modern German history. --Caponer (talk) 14:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Sexed up
Hello,

I just wanted to let you know that I completely disagree with the outcome of Articles for deletion/Sexed up. Including the nominator, the discussion had 6 recommendations: four of them were delete and only two of them were keep. Each of the latter two suggestions was significantly challenged. Alansohn's vote was basically a blatant misrepresentation of the existing facts. I can only assume that you didn't visit my link, as it clearly shows that the mentioned Hutton description doesn't describe the term in any relevant detail. Not only that, the report never uses the neologism without quotation marks—an unmistakable indication of irregular, not commonly accepted usage. The references added by Richard Arthur Norton mention the term briefly and in the context of one particular situation, which is a big no-no under WP:NEO, which specifically states that a new term does not belong in Wikipedia unless there are reliable sources specifically about the term — not just sources which mention it briefly or use it in passing. Some of these sources barely mention the term at all. To sum it up, I usually respect most of your decisions, but in this case I believe that according to Wikipedia's guidelines your decision can only be seen as inconsiderate and downright wrongful. You should pay more attention to all sides of the argument next time. — Rankiri (talk) 03:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello, and thank you for sharing your opinion on this matter. Pastor Theo (talk) 12:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Removing rollback
Hi,

I'd really prefer that you hadn't intruded there. I contemplated my removal of those user rights prior to undertaking it, as I hope would be evident from the post on Corruptcopper's talk page. ROLLBACK is a privilege and can and should be removed if it is clear it is being misused. It was clear to me that it was being misused, but in case I was over-reacting I asked another administrator to review my decision and reverse it as necessary. He stated that he endorsed the decision. In my discussions with Corruptcopper I tried to make it clear that the removal of rollback just meant the elimination of one tool in the kit, not a substantial change in the user's stature. It appeared to me that he and I had come to an understanding right before you stepped in to reverse my admin action without discussing it with me first.

I also don't appreciate your misapprehension about my motivations--I didn't remove rollback to 'punish' Corruptcopper. I removed rollback because he was using rolling back edits which were not vandalism. Rollback is not a reward and the removal of rollback is not a punishment.

So unless you feel that I (and Julian, in endorsing my decision) made a grievous error in judgment, please self revert as soon as it is convenient. I won't revert you, but if you stand by your decision I may bring this up on the Administrators' Noticeboard. Thank you. Protonk (talk) 02:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello! In reviewing this situation, I don't see any conversation between yourself and Corruptcopper regarding the problematic nature of his editing -- unless, of course, there is an off-Wiki e-mail exchange that I am unaware of. I see your initial notice of concern, followed 18 minutes later by the abrupt removal of the rollback rights without allowing Corruptcopper to say a word in his defense. That doesn't strike me as being fair.  Corruptcopper has had rollback since January and appears to be a very good editor.  He is clearly aware of the problem now and, as per his comments on your talk page, he appears to be sincerely apologetic for his error -- which, as far as I can determine, created no damage whatsoever.  He is also more than aware that not being careful will lead to removal of the rollback rights again -- and, I presume, spoil his chances for adminship, which he has been angling for via Juliancolton's assistance. As for Julian - who appears to be a friend of yours - I noticed that you asked of him: "I was wondering if you could review this action, reverse it if necessary and leave him a friendly note that ROLLBACK is easy-come, easy go?" Well, I actually did exactly what you asked of Julian -- I guess the shock of having an outsider take you up on your invitation may have been a bit much, and if that is the case then I would apologize for having me crash unannounced into this situation. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm honestly less upset about the actual reversal than I am about the implication that I'm punishing him or that removing the userright was wrong in the first place. And on top of that, I'm upset that 'after the event occurred, after the discussion between me and the user was effectively complete and we were moving ahead, you came along and stepped in without talking to me.  As for the timeline of removal, I noted a particularly improper revert, informed Copper about it, then went back through his reverts and in more than 50% of his recent reverts, found problems.  More than 50% of his recent actions were flat out errors.  And so I stepped in.  Arguably you could say that the moment has passed, but stepping in saying the moment has passed is totally different from stepping in and saying that I made a complete error. Protonk (talk) 02:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, "which, as far as I can determine, created no damage whatsoever" is incorrect. Every time we revert good faith contributions as vandalism we reject a contributions to the encyclopedia and push away a potential long term editor.  That much is clear in the ROLLBACK policy and the VAND policy. Protonk (talk) 03:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You know, I have only been admin for about a month (thank you, Balloonman!), and in that month I have learned one thing -- it is utterly impossible for anyone with a mop to walk from one side of Wikipedia to another without stepping on a multitude of toes. :) You obviously had reason to be concerned -- the edits you harvested were mistakes. My red flag moment, however, came without having Corruptcopper speak up before rollback was removed.  If I were in your shoes, I would have allowed Corruptcopper to explain himself first, then I would act accordingly.  Corruptcopper strikes me as being very intelligent, and I am sure that he will go forward knowing that he has to be careful because several sets of eyes are watching him -- I will gladly revert myself here if I find that my trust was grievously misplaced.  As for any WTF agita created by me, I am genuinely sorry if I spoiled your evening. Peace be with you. Pastor Theo (talk) 03:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for understanding. I also appreciate the irony of demanding that you discuss reversing an admin action w/ me while I removed a userright without discussing that action with the user.  Cognizant of that irony, I will say that the quickest route to stepping on toes is reverting an admin action without prior discussion with the admin.  I'm prepared to accept this as 'forceful backup' regarding my actions.  We can leave the rollback userright in place. Protonk (talk) 03:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Very nice. Now you will have new reason to hate me -- your AfD on Janet E. Marsh. I think Ms. Marsh may be (emphasis on may) a notable writer under the name Janet Marsh -- see the AfD for new headaches. :) Pastor Theo (talk) 03:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh please do find sources on that one. Check the linked An/i report for the reasoning behind that one. Protonk (talk) 03:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Unless there are two women of the same name writing about lichens, I think this woman may be a notable writer whose earlier work was published under "Janet Marsh." Pastor Theo (talk) 03:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry if I have caused a war between you two admins. I do understand where you are both coming from and have now read the policies through twice and now understand them so will not be so quick in just clicking revert on huggle. Corruptcopper (talk) 10:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello! It is hardly a "war," but at least something of value emerged from the discussion.  I look forward to your future contributions here. :) Pastor Theo (talk) 10:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your participation in my recent RfA. I will do my very best not to betray the confidence you have shown me. If you ever have any questions or suggestions about my conduct as an administrator or as an editor please don't hesitate to contact me. Once again, thanks. ·Maunus· ƛ · 12:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou
Hi. Thankyou very much your kind barnstar. I am 99% of the time, maybe 95% on this crazy site, a pleasant friendly person and rarely curse at people. But I am a firm believer that you should treat others as they treat you and viceversa. What got to me was I spent hours yesterday working hard to improving the quality of the Palestinian articles and then I get it referred to as "diarrhea" behind my back. If you've ever worked hard and something and at the end of it people are highly critical and don't acknowledge you are trying in good faith it is a tough pill to swallow. Anyway thanks... Dr. Blofeld       White cat 09:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello again! I have found in life that no matter what you do, there will always be someone who is ready, willing and able to find fault with your work. It happens to the best of us.  Just keep doing what you are doing -- at the end of the day, your opinion of yourself is the only one that truly matters.  Peace be with you. Pastor Theo (talk) 10:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Already unblocked Davydotcom
FYI, I already boldly unblocked. Wknight94 talk  01:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I know -- I was posting the message to Cirt when you did that. Thanks for doing the right thing! :) Pastor Theo (talk) 01:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter (September 2009)

 * Want to be interviewed for issue 2? Ikip (talk) 03:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Eddie Belmonte
I added some racing information on the Eddie Belmonte article you created but in fact have been avoiding doing his full bio because it sure ain't pretty. However, will try ASAP. Handicapper (talk) 14:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello! Yes, Eddie is quite the BLP challenge. You did a wonderful job in expanding the article.  Keep up the fantastic work -- I love your articles! :) Pastor Theo (talk) 21:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

need your help again with unmarking for speedy delete
I discovered 2 more pages marked for speedy delete (Art LaFleur and Mike Vitar) that I didn't think should be, both by this user. Can you un-speedy these if you agree? Thanks, Shymian (talk) 12:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Done deal. Good catches!  But, in future, there is no need to call on me -- admins review all CSD tags before determining if they are appropriate, and many tagged articles don't get deleted.  Thanks! :) Pastor Theo (talk) 12:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! There were a LOT more articles marked for CSD by the same user, though, which is why I wondered if I was missing something, or if he was mis-interpreting the guidelines that he was quoting.  If I come across any more either by him or by anyone else, is it ok for me to remove the tag, or should I be leaving that for an admin? Shymian (talk) 12:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course, you are welcome to ask the editor directly about his tagging. But I would recommend letting the process work its way out -- I wasn't planning to do CSD review this morning, but if I was then I would have declined those two tags without hesitation.  Enjoy! Pastor Theo (talk) 12:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok. Thanks again! :-) Shymian (talk) 12:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

you should have spoken with me first
I've answered on my talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Lane End Primary School
I notice you have deleted this under WP:CSD. Under this criterion it states ''A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy, having any title, of a page deleted via a deletion discussion. This excludes articles that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, articles that address the reasons for which the material was deleted, and Content moved to user space for explicit improvement. Material moved or copied to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy is not excluded). This also excludes content undeleted via deletion review, deleted via proposed deletion, or to speedy deletions (although in that case, the previous speedy criterion, or other speedy criteria, may apply).'' I would interested in hearing on how it meets this criterion, it is not a re-creation of an identical copy, it was a re-direct. The history was undeleted for attribution purposes only. The content inserted (now removed, I will deal with later) was not an identical copy either, it was only segment of the original article modified by me which I thought would address the concerns of the AfD i.e. does not meet WP:N so can't have its own page. WP:AfD decisions do not cover re-directs, they are determined at WP:RfD, if having even a re-direct is a problem it should have been made more clear on the AfD, or taken there. Camaron · Christopher · talk 14:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Consensus was to delete, not to redirect and merge. You went against consensus.  Majorly  talk  14:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. Firstly, I myself accepted deletion on grounds of covering the basic info elsewhere, and other editors might have done so too, though I did not make that as clear as I perhaps should have done on the AfD. There has been a long standing convention to merge and re-direct primary school articles as mentioned at WP:OUTCOMES, and I and other editors have been for months if not years re-directing articles to the correct locality place. This is the first time this practice has been significantly challenged, and as I have already explained AfD decisions do not dictate the existence of re-directs and content in other articles. There is no current guideline or policy clarifying this but a proposed one at Recreation of previously deleted pages will do. It has not been explained how G4 applies here either. Camaron · Christopher · talk 15:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, feel free to restore it, but I'll take it to RFD because it does not need mentioning in the main article. It's a tiny insignificant primary school in an average village, and I don't get the apparent need to retain the information on this school. It adds nothing to the article, which I slaved over for months to get to featured quality.  Majorly  talk  15:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Alternatively, I'd be happy with a redirect to List of schools in Stockport. Just not the village article.  Majorly  talk  15:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I do, and so do the rest of WikiProject Schools. Well done on the FA, but the current article does not even mention the name of the school, a bit unusual for most locality articles I have come across. The information given was encyclopedic and in line with WP:V and as far as I can see WP:RS. Just because an editor thinks information is insignificant does not not mean it should be removed, it may not add much for one person, but it might do another. However, that is not the only place the article could be re-directed to, as you have suggested it could be re-directed to List of schools in Stockport which does give the school name, though as I have explained on the AfD this is not enough. In the long run it should be re-directed to another page that is yet to exist for the local schools that looks something like List of schools in Crawley, West Sussex as also discussed on the AfD. Re-directs are not helpful just for navigation, they are also useful in the event that a school becomes notable to allow an article to be re-created in a non-G4 way easily for non-admins. Camaron · Christopher · talk 15:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It mentions one other primary school that happened to be the first built in the village. None of the others are mentioned. Why should it mention this one? What makes this one so important, so special? There's nine primary schools in Cheadle Hulme, and out of all of them, there are better ones to mention, if any. I don't see why any weight should be given to this school. Additionally, an article along the lines of List of schools in Cheadle Hulme just sounds so ridiculous to me (because it would be so short, and there'd be so little to say other than what's in the main article).  Majorly  talk  15:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The article I was thinking of would contain some prose, not just a straight list, which are not that helpful. I am sure a good paragraph could be written based on reliable sources for each school, particularly if offline sources are considered, and this is more encyclopedic than lists. Collectively the schools could meet WP:N, it is just when put in individual articles their is a problem. Camaron · Christopher · talk 15:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Lists should always contain prose. As it happens though, an article on the schools might be feasible – according to the list (which I expanded and referenced recently) Cheadle Hulme has the most schools out of every area in the borough. So, if any place was to have its own article, it would be Cheadle Hulme. I'll think about this.  Majorly  talk  16:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello! Majorly is correct - there was no consensus to redirect, and recreating a page dedicated to this subject (even as a redirect) intentionally contradicts the conclusion of the AfD, which stated that the subject be removed. If you wish to provide the school with Wikipedia coverage, I would recommend adding a sentence to the Cheadle Hume article's education section. Thank you for stopping by. Pastor Theo (talk) 15:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I already removed the sentence added. It has no place on the article. It is sufficiently covered on the list of schools article.  Majorly  talk  15:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I will leave the Cheadle Hume article's contents for someone else to monitor or referee. My concern was strictly the AfD. Thanks! Pastor Theo (talk) 15:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That does not explain how G4 applied, and I have already said re-directs are not under the jurisdiction of AfD, hence why G4 is worded the way it is. Nor does it explain why a re-direct is a problem in the first place, and why the AfD cannot be amended based on the new arguments I have suggested. I can't take stuff out of the deleted history of an article and put it in another, that would cause licensing issues as explained at Merge and delete. Camaron · Christopher · talk 15:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This is my last input on the subject: the AfD determined that the subject does not meet WP:N standards and the entry relating to the school was deleted. The AfD did not conclude with the decision to redirect -- it concluded with the result to delete a standalone article based on this subject. If you wish to cite the subject within the appropriate context of other articles, you can pursue that avenue. But the AfD concluded that the subject does not warrant its own page, even if that page is a mere redirect. Pastor Theo (talk) 15:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I just saw that while I was writing my "last input," you went ahead and did a redirect. Pardon the decidedly non-pastoral language, but screw it -- if it makes you happy, then I'm also happy. Pastor Theo (talk) 15:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirects are harmless, and I'm happy with a redirect to the list.  Majorly  talk  16:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:N does not apply to re-directs. AfD is about articles, hence the name, and if they should exist, not anything else. As explained at Redirects, re-directs are not articles. You have not explained 1) How G4 applied in this instance 2) How I can take information out of a deleted page and put it in another without giving proper attribution per Merge and delete 3) Why a re-direct is a problem here, and if conflicting with the AfD result (which I disagree with) why it cannot be amended to allow a re-direct, particularly given that Majorly, appears happy to re-direct it to List of schools in Stockport, just not Cheadle Hulme, a condition I would accept. AfD decisions are not set in stone and admins frequently amend them based on user feedback and new evidence/arguments, this seems to be a perfect case for this.


 * While I writing the above the re-direct was created, that is good but I would still like the history restored behind the re-direct for the reasons I have given in this discussion. I would normally do it as a simple mainteance action, but that would not be true in this instance. Camaron · Christopher · talk 16:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate you taking on the closing on this AfD and explaining your rationale but I do not understand 1. why you did not follow the standard operating procedure of simply redirecting the article or 2. why you feel the "need to remove" the article history. While I agree there was insufficient direct coverage for a complete article on the school, there were multiple reliable sources for the facts in the article and the article/author history should be available should sufficient reliable sources become available for an article in the future. How exactly was deleting the article history a "need"? Double Blue (talk) 18:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Because the consensus was clear to delete, not redirect or merge.  Majorly  talk  18:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well if it not clear already that consensus is being challenged, there was not a proper consideration of re-directing it during the AfD or when it was closed, as there normally is for school AfDs. It is more likely there was consensus to not have an article, but no consensus established that there should have not been a re-direct. Camaron · Christopher · talk 18:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * A closing admin is required to not just count the votes but evaluate the arguments and if it was clear to Pastor Theo that the article should not remain then I think the obvious and standard thing to do is redirect the article. If it wasn't obvious at closing, fine but then after being raised by Camaron, then what was the "need to remove" the article history, first mentioned in the rationale, that drives this. Normally this is a copyvio or BLP violation. Double Blue  (talk) 18:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Walls & Futures page
Pastor,

Can you explain why you have deleted my Wiki insertion regarding Walls & Futures.

While there weas a mistake in me creating two pages, it was down to not being familair with Wiki. I believe my insertion is just as valid as the other companies listed.

Look forward to your response.

Joe —Preceding unsigned comment added by WandF (talk • contribs) 16:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, Joe, Wikipedia is not a forum for the promotion and marketing of products, services and merchandise. Your article was not encyclopedic -- it was closer to spam, hence its removal. And since your activities here were devoted solely to spamming and promoting your company (including the account name WandF), you have been blocked. Sorry, Joe, but you need to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies and assure us there will be no further spamming before you can continue here. Pastor Theo (talk) 19:45, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

what have you blocked me from editing the Ty Cobb page I am merely correcting errors....thanks  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tycobb1000 (talk • contribs) 02:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * My block already expired -- that was from the 26th. Pastor Theo (talk) 19:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Haven't forgotten about you
We will come back to the interview soon, I am busy making this tool:

Ikip (talk) 04:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

You're invited...
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wiki-Conference New York, plan for the next stages of projects like Wikipedia Takes Manhattan and Wikipedia at the Library, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the May meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Alice of Wonderland in Paris

 * Very nice! Alice and I thank you! Pastor Theo (talk) 23:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Quick question
Can I use this image in a userbox? It's licensed as CCA 2.0. I'm pretty sure there wouldn't be a problem, but wanted to check first. Thanks again, Javért   &#124;  Talk 23:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, this is not my area of expertise -- I am a ninny when it comes to image questions. I would respectfully request that you ask another admin. Pastor Theo (talk) 23:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay. Thanks anyway. :) Congrats on the new DYK, btw. Regards, Javért   &#124;  Talk 23:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, that is a funny movie. We showed that in our church school -- the kids hated it, LOL! -- and I was curious about its history. Pastor Theo (talk) 23:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * My only DYK is from an article I wrote on a Jonathan Edwards sermon, so it is funny the things that attract our attention. :) Also, in reference to the image, PeterSymonds says you can. Regards, Javért   &#124;  Talk 00:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * That is very, very kind of you. Thank you for this thoughtful gesture. Pastor Theo (talk) 12:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

HyperOffice Entry
Hi Pastor,

Some changes have been made to the HyperOffice entry since last time I contacted you (our conversations are in your archive 1). You recommended changes to the products section, but that section was created after looking at other companies in the space, which have a similar tone - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebEx, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoho. Do you think it still needs to be changed? Please consider removing your flags after the recent changes. Pankajunk (talk) 14:12, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello, it is good to hear from you again! Yes, the rewrite is great -- I removed the tags and linked the article to WikiProject Internet via its Talk Page. Thank you for thinking of me, and please stay in touch. Pastor Theo (talk) 15:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Discussion at Dendodge's RFA
Hi there. I think our discussion there has gone far off-topic by now, so I decided to contact you here. Please re-read my original !vote again, I fear you might have mixed it up with comments by other people. I do not consider Dendodge immature, nor have I said so or would this be a reason for opposing. My comments were on the fact that Dendodge has shown some unfortunate misunderstandings of deletion policy which he has admitted, e.g. that A7 is not a notability criterion and that he made a mistake when tagging the article I criticized because he did not review the history. His response was indeed mature and well-behaved and parts of me would hate to see him fail. Your comments unfortunately, if I may say so, have not been very helpful. I had merely pointed out a possible bad-faith interpretation of his actions (violating WP:ADMINSHOP which includes re-tagging after a decline) and you have defended him against it even after he had gone on record saying that this was not the case. As such, you have attacked a straw man and phrased it in a way that sounded as if you accused me of !voting for selfish reasons. I do not care if you intended to accuse me in such a way or not (although I hope you didn't) but I would like to ask you to hold yourself back from further commenting in this RFA. Although probably unintended, you might influence (and might have influenced) people who are (and maybe were) reconsidering their !votes to Dendodge's disadvantage if they read comments they might perceive as overly aggressive. Again, if you think I am acting selfish or for the wrong reasons, I am very much open to discuss the issue. But there is no need to do it at that RFA, is there? Regards  So Why  15:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello. I am sorry, but I am not interested in prolonging this discussion. Pastor Theo (talk) 15:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The choice is yours to make of course. I just wanted to offer it. Have a nice day nonetheless. Regards  So Why  16:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I am having a nice day. I hope yours is nice, too. :) Pastor Theo (talk) 16:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Human Rights Torch Relay
If you have some time please provide us with an input at this RFC on 2008 Summer Olympics torch relay article and this Merger Contest. Thank You! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 23:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, but I will pass on this one. Pastor Theo (talk) 23:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Interview
First peek: WikiProject_Article_Rescue_Squadron/Newsletter/20091001/Interview Ikip (talk) 23:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Very nice! I feel like a star! :) Pastor Theo (talk) 00:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello

 * Hello could you help me in this article? Albanian nationalism 1.One to put it in some order and 2.two to stop people from vandalizing it.Thankou.Megistias (talk) 12:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello! If there are problems regarding vandalism, please contact WP:RFPP or WP:AIV, depending on the severity of the havoc. As for bringing order, this is not a subject where I can offer the slightest trace of expertise. Sorry to disappoint. Pastor Theo (talk) 22:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Happy Labor Day!
Dear colleague, I just want to wish you a happy, hopefully, extended holiday weekend and nice end to summer! Your friend, --A NobodyMy talk 04:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that is so nice of you! I hope you had a nice holiday, too. Pastor Theo (talk) 22:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Nominations open for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September! Many thanks,  Roger Davies  talk 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Not salt
Not salt, I wanted to alleviate any feelings of alienation that TPH was feeling: he apparently thought that people 'hated' him. I don't hate anyone, let alone on Wikipedia. And I am always open to changing my position if I am presented with an indication that I am wrong or the user has changed. However, in my prior attempts to have TPH be a little more distinguishing in his R/MFD noms, I had been unsuccessful. So, a firm oppose, but had he indicated he realized where some of his noms in the past had been problematic, I most definitely would have softened towards neutral (support less likely, but it's not outside the realm of possibility). However, his response was less than satisfactory. Anyhow, I respect your opinion and wanted to explain this and thank you for your comments. –xenotalk 16:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC) (Looking at it again "I think you're a poor judge..." was probably a little salty and I probably could've been sweeter there)
 * Thank you for stopping by. I hope this RfB experience has not been stressful for you. And I really shouldn't use salt-based analogies. I recall one of our church school lessons when a precocious child, upon learning the fate of Lot's wife, asked if Lot put her in a salt shaker and later sprinkled her on his dinner. Peace be with you. Pastor Theo (talk) 17:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Not at all. I put myself up because I have a lot of spare time that I can use to push buttons at CHU and BRFA. But I realize the main part of the job is closing RFAs and that's what people focus on. Really and truly, those two former tasks should be split off from the 'crat toolset. I don't really have a desire to close RFAs, but I would in times of need (like when one goes six hours overdue =). Thanks again for trying to keep my RfB focused. –xenotalk 17:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't how successful I have been, given that some people are taking their UFC fight into my !vote and someone else compared you to a well-trained gibbon. This really isn't quite what I envisioned when I joined Wikipedia. :) Pastor Theo (talk) 17:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

your recent point
There is a point I sometimes make in regard to faith-based miracle healing: there are endless recorded testimonies of the blind receiving sight and the lame receiving mobility, but there is no recorded testimony of the stupid receiving brainpower.

Where are these "endless recorded testimonies" of faith-based miracle healing?

Isn't "the stupid receiving brainpower" (e.g. an alcoholic choosing to sober up, or a Wikipedia vandal reforming into a valuable user) a far more common occurence?

I don't have any intention of starting any kind of debate, I'm just not sure I understood your point. Keepscases (talk) 18:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The history of approving the elevation of the pious to sainthood is based on the confirmation of faith-based healing (the attribution of miracles via prayers to the saints-in-waiting). I don't think of alcoholics as "stupid" -- I host AA meetings and the people in attendance are anything but stupid. Thank you and be well. Pastor Theo (talk) 18:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * PT, while technically correct, I do have to challenge your comment that there is "no recorded testimony of the stupid receiving brainpower." Religious writings, of virtually every culture, have preserved stories of just that happening.  They may not use the same language that you are using here, but the stories do exist.  Take the story of St Paul, who was Saul, as an example.  Prior to the road to Tarsus, he was deemed to be ignorant of God's grace, but a miracle showed him the light and he became one of the strongest advocates for early Christianity the world knows.  Many conversion stories embody the notion that the person "Saw the light" or became wise.  Similar stories exist throughout not only the Gospel narratives, but non-Christian traditions as well.  Furthmore, the language is often more obscure.  Miracles of people who were deaf were often synonymous with being dumb.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 20:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Another famous example, Moses. Moses was a stutter, which has been tied to being dumb (even today, people make the mistake in equating stuttering with stupidity.)  When God called upon Moses, his first reaction was, "Not me, take my brother, he can speak like the angles."  God said no, and Moses was able to speak clearly.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 20:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * A third example, and this is more from tradition and strongest in evangelical circles, but the notion of the Bible being written directly by God, thus being infallable. There is a strong tradition that when the original authors wrote the various passages of the Bible, that they were not the one who was writing them, but rather that God was speaking through them---thus providing the additional brain power required.  Similarly, ministers often make similar claims about God speaking through them (or somebody else)... thus, again receiving additional "brainpower."--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 20:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh no, what I have brought forth? :P Seriously, I just made a very light joke to cheer up TPH following his bitter RfA bruising. Don’t take it as anything deep or profound – I am not here to offer words of wisdom. :) Pastor Theo (talk) 20:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)