User talk:DavidBailey/Archive1

Jacko
Nah mate, I couldn't care less about Jackson. I'd go so far as to say I hate him. In fact my only contribution to that page was the bit about the Brit Awards in 1996 where he cokmpared himself to Jesus and Jarvis Cocker rushed the stage and made him look stupid. I'm really just trying to out-flame that kid (who is a vandal, so probably not there to imporve the page either)--Crestville 10:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, reading back over the page, most of my comments aren't that bad - I'm just trying to explian to that little bastard that this isn't a fan sight and we've every right to criticise Jackson in the article--Crestville 10:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem. I understand wanting to inform newbies about Wikipedia policy, but you might want to try toning down the language a bit. This link contains some good guidelines related to interacting with new folks. Thanks. DavidBailey 12:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I know all that mate, but he was either playing a joke or mental. He wasn't just new, he was taking the piss.--Crestville 13:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to the Wikipedia
I noticed you were new, and wanted to share some links I thought useful:

You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~. V. Joe
 * Tutorial
 * Help desk
 * Foundation issues
 * Policy Library


 * Thanks VJoe! However, I not really new to Wikipedia. My contributions to Wikipedia. Perhaps I should work on a cool home page like you! (grin) DavidBailey 11:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Mediation request not filled out properly
Hello there. I am Cowman109Talk from the Mediation Cabal. I just came here to inform you that your request for information was not filed properly. While the link to the mediation page is on the correct page, you have not filled out what needs mediating. Please see Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-06-09 Special rights and copy and paste into the edit box and hit save, then go and fill out the questions asked. Thank you. Cowman109Talk 15:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Whoops, I've fixed it. DavidBailey 14:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Special rights
I'm staying off the talk page for various reasons. But I think your cites for #2 on that list of questions don't really address it. The first three are religious leaders, not civil rights leaders. The Jesse Jackson one is ambigous as is the question; in the cite, it is specifically gay marriage that he is excluding as a civil right, not gay rights in general. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 21:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * If a religious leader speaks about civil rights, does it not make him a civil rights leader also, or at least a leader who is talking about civil rights? I think it's a bit narrow-sighted to say that only those who have spoke about civil rights in the past have a right to define what "civil rights" are. DavidBailey 21:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, the question did ask, "Do there exist self identified civil rights activists in positions of leadership (i.e. head civil rights organizations) that hold that issues like same sex marriage are not civil rights issues?" So I think he was looking more for Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton sorts of people. I'm not criticising those religious leaders you cited, or their opinions; I'm just pointing out that they don't really satisfy the criteria in the question. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 21:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You are probably correct that they don't meet the criteria of the question. However, I think that both religious and civil rights leaders have had a long history of being intertwined and that they probably have some valid things to say on the topic. How do you suggest I move forward with this? Would you rather I retract the citations and find others? Do you feel I should explain my views on the discussion page? DavidBailey 21:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess one question is "who gets to define something as being, or not being, a civil right?" At this point, I'm confused even about what the dispute is. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 21:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it's a valid question. However, I am less concerned about whether or not it is valid to call "gay rights" "civil rights" than the fact that it is confusing and POV-biased to do so without thoroughly explaining why. The debate that brought us here was whether or not the Libertarian view was of equal importance to the social conservative use of the term, and whether it should be in the opening paragraph. Unfortunately, neither Alienus nor Bhuck even want the article to exist at all, and frankly, at times I think they are just trying to argue random points to introduce confusion into the process. Actually, I have a question, I think I can show that Alienus is engaging in conduct that harms, not helps, Wikipedia. Where do I report that? Mediation obviously seems to fall short of his multiple article, seize control of discussions, seize control of editing, and rapid reversion and introduction of personal POV-biases strategies. DavidBailey 21:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * As it happens, it turns out that you are mistaken. This article deserves to exist, however I feel about the term. However, the article absolutely must follow WP:NOV, no matter what.  This is not negotiable.  Al  21:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * And tell me Al, is your confrontational tone and ill manner also non-negotiable? DavidBailey 22:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * That's what WP:RFC/USER is for. Might want to wait until the mediator either achieves something or gives up. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 21:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I intend to. Alienus' user page shows examples of the behavior I have been noticing where he comes into a discussion, begans to dominate it by rapid reverts and edits, and then claims those who revert back to be out of step with consensus. It's highly confrontational. DavidBailey 21:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oddly enough, I consider your frequent reverts in the name of an imaginary conensus to be highly confrontational. Aren't perspectives interesting?  Al  21:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Only imaginary in your head Al. Having eight to ten people with different perspectives agree in a discussion page over a period of three or more days constitutes a consensus to me. However, your getting one person to agree with you and immediately implementing and claiming you don't have to wait for anyone elses opinion must constitute a consensus for you. DavidBailey 22:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Clearly, we disagree about what the consensus is. Regardless, terms such as "pro-homosexual" are misleading and POV, so I will continue to remove them as necessary.  If you feel that I am wrong in doing so, it is up to you to demonstrate their neutrality.  Al  22:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Please continue to do so, and in so doing illustrate your doggedly POV-bias. It makes it much easier to get others to side with my more reasoned perspective. DavidBailey 22:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, also, archiving talk pages while in the middle of heated discussions never works; someone always objects, and occasionally rightfully so. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 21:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It wasn't my intention to archive active content. It was my intention to try to focus the number of threads so that the same topic wasn't being debated in three or four areas. DavidBailey 21:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Archiving can sometimes be one of those things with good intentions that backfire as often as not. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 21:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Style guide
Hey, could you show me where in the style guide the italicization you're using is suggested? I've don't recall seeing italics being used on Wikipedia in the way you seem to be doing. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, never mind, didn't see talk page.--jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm, perhaps I construed general usage too widely, IE- if it's an accepted practice generally, it's an accepted practice in Wikipedia, which might not be true. DavidBailey 14:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, print and online text work kinda differently, I think; there aren't any hyperlinks in books (which I find more and more annoying!). Oh, I've continued the other discussion over on my own talk page. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 17:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Homosexual agenda
That first sentence is too long. I hope it can be shortened or split. Also, if you are interested in conservative issues come see the new project page, Conservative_notice_board. Thanks. --Facto 10:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You're right, it is. It is a tortured construct trying vainly to bridge the gap gracefully between two camps which seem incapable of finding compromise. It's sad frankly, but the best we have at this point. DavidBailey 10:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Anglophile
What does it mean for an American to be an Anglophile? How does this manifest itself? Is it because of your English ansestory? Do you believe God is a middle aged Yorkshireman or do you, like every other English person, watch Neighbours?--Crestville 13:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, I have not watched Neighbours, and would probably spell it Neighbors, in any case. However, I love all things English. Actually, I'm certain I don't love every part of English culture, but much of it does hold a fascination for me. It likely originates from the fact that I love my home country, the United States, and so much of its history is intertwined with England's. Also, my ancestry largely comes from the British Isles. I also love a good deal of English literature, especially J.R.R. Tolkien and C. S. Lewis. I admire great English personalities such as Winston Churchill and the current monarch, Queen Elizabeth. I don't think God is a Yorkshireman, but I believe He took special care in creating the Yorkshireman's country. (grin) DavidBailey 14:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well played David, well played. Consider me appeased, though I would be interested to know what areas of English culture you dislike (and also how you could admire the personality of someone as dull - or at least reluctant to show their feelings - as the Queen). My problem with America is that, for whatever reason (probably media coverage), lovely Americans like you are overshadowed by big, stupid Americans who refuse to acknowlege the theory of evolution and hate Iraqies rather than their old regeme. These people are a minority I'm sure. BTW, you forgot the music and Monty Phython (grin right back at ya!)--Crestville 14:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * True enough, and for the record: I admire the Queen because of her stance on moral issues and the dignity she succeeds in bringing to her office, which many would consider ceremonial, and for her love of family; I acknowledge that evolution may have been the way that God made the earth, although no one can claim they know this for certain; I admire those who love and fight for freedom, regardless of the color of their skin, and feel we owe the Iraqis a stable country that can defend itself against internal and external forces before the coalition forces exit; I have watched and laughed a great deal over Monty Python and find most British humor very funny, although sometimes low theater can be unnecessarily vulgar; and I own too many British-artist popular music CDs (and iTunes tracks) to count (from the 80s on) and also enjoy folk music from the UK. As far as the parts I don't enjoy, I try to look for the good and avoid the bad, just like here in the USA. DavidBailey 14:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Football hooligansim and upperclass snobbery. That's what I don't like (the food's pretty good, honest). I agree with you about the Queen's dignity and she seems a very nice person, unlike some mebers of her family, but she is too guarded. In England the common feeling is, as times have changed, we like people who speak from the heart, who say "I'm gonna do this" or "I'm trying to do this". The Queen, in her Christmas speech (broadcast every year on 25th Dec), and other such speaches (like when Diana died) seems very guarded and is quite hard to love. The nature of the British people is such that if she were more open, like The Beatles, Eric Morecambe, the Duke of Wellington, etc. they would take her to their hearts and love her forever (that sounds way too soppy, but it's true. Look at Benjamin Distaeli, or the original Queen Liz). If the Government just said "We tried to do this, but we failed, this is why we feel we failed, sorry" people would be much more forgiving. Mind, that applies to anyone/thing really (the idea adapted from Eddie Izzard, another fine comedian). Mind, America has it's many plusses too, thanks for the simpsons, south park, Nirvana, Dave Grohl, Bill Hicks, Rich Hall, David Spade and Cheers.--Crestville 15:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I worry that too many people who, when they are highly criticized, become guarded in their public discourse. It's a shame really. I think public figures should be more willing to admit mistakes when they feel they have made them, and equally willing to state that regardless of the outcome, they feel that something was not a mistake, and that they stand by their original decision, if that is how they feel. Politicians and public figures too often try to appease everyone, and that rarely works. Glad to hear that the USA is still admired for something around the world, although I must say, I worry that people think that the Simpsons are the incarnation of the average American family. Take care. DavidBailey 16:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Conservative_notice_board
Wow, it was deleted while I was away. Thanks for trying to have it restored. I'm trying again now. It seems very unfair. --Facto 18:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It is. See this conversation I was having with JPGordon. It appears that they've left the door open for recreating it at WikiProject Conservatism. See the conversation here. DavidBailey 18:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Deletion review for the notice board is underway. Please see Deletion_review Thanks. --Facto 20:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm, an admin restored the conservative notice board and renamed it the Politics notice board. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conservative_notice_board&redirect=no --Facto 21:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * And another apparently deleted it as well. DavidBailey 10:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Huh?
1. I'm not an admin for numerous and good reasons. 2. I don't revert *WAR*. That dosen't mean I don't revert 3. No ones opinions about gay rights are relevent to this encyclopedia. Not yours, not Alienus' and not mine. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 19:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, for some reason, I thought you were an admin. As far as #3 goes, I think you are being naive to believe that one's personal beliefs do not impact our attempts to be non-biased. If I can understand what someone thinks about a topic, it helps me communicate with them, even if our opinions don't end up in the article. DavidBailey 20:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

A short Esperanzial update
As you may have gathered, discussions have been raging for about a week on the Esperanza talk page as to the future direction of Esperanza. Some of these are still ongoing and warrant more input (such as the idea to scrap the members list altogether). However, some decisions have been made and the charter has hence been amended. See what happened. Basically, the whole leadership has had a reshuffle, so please review the new, improved charter.

As a result, we are electing 4 people this month. They will replace JoanneB and Pschemp and form a new tranche A, serving until December. Elections will begin on 2006-07-02 and last until 2006-07-09. If you wish to run for a Council position, add your name to the list before 2006-07-02. For more details, see Esperanza/June 2006 elections.

Thanks and kind, Esperanzial regards, &mdash;Cel es tianpower háblame 16:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Apology
DavidBailey, I'm sorry if I've offended you in the discussion about Political categories. It was not my intention to be disrespectful, and I'm sorry if I was despite myself.

I've replied in detail at the discussion, hoping to more clearly explain my frustrations with the conversation, which I apparently didn't do too well the first time around. Please understand that I'm only interested in finding a solution where everybody wins. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * GTBacchus. Thanks. I've responded in the article. DavidBailey 02:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

RfC: Alienus
Please put comments related to the RfC for Alienus in this sub-page designed for this purpose. Thanks. DavidBailey 03:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Please feel free to make use of this. Jakew 09:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've moved the information into the sub-page, that I am working on. DavidBailey 11:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

AN/I comments
Thank you for the nice comments over at AN/I! That was touching that you would take the time to do that. Anyway I will continue to mediate your case (and others), Kim has that kind of authority only in his own head. jbolden1517Talk 14:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

draft RfC
Hi. I noticed your draft of a user RfC on Alienus. Do you mind if I ask what your goals are with that? For example, is there a particular behavior of his you're looking to see change? I think these dispute resolution things often work out well when they have well-defined goals. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi GT. Yes, it's really been because I've tried every other avenue I know of, and they have failed. I give and give, and get nothing back in terms of cooperation. I'm tired of having all my edits reverted because Alienus doesn't agree with my assessment that he's not even trying to have a neutral POV in the article. Requests for civility don't work. Mediation doesn't work. He is systematically erasing every perspective on Wikipedia other than his own in the articles he edits. This is a violation of Wikipedia policy. Once this work is done and the items are laid out, I plan to offer Alienus a chance to join and abide by the rules of the Harmonious editing club. If he can do this, I won't go forward with the RfC. If he refuses. I will. The ultimate goal is just to be able to be part of Wikipedia without being intimidated and silenced. I understand that Alienus feels very strongly about some of the articles I have worked on with him, but it cannot be that he enforces his perspective by continually silencing those who disagree with him. DavidBailey 01:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Have you tried article RfCs in the articles in question (Homosexual agenda and Special rights)? Those are often more positive/productive than user conduct RfCs, and are certainly good to have in the background if you do decide to escalate the dispute resolution process.  Usually, the number one way to deal with content disputes is to bring more eyes to them. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, the issue is more with Alienus himself. Even though I've had disputes with others like Bhuck, I can at least work with him. I've already asked for moderation of Special rights. Right now, it seems that every time Alienus comes against an opinion he doesn't like, it's a train wreck. I'm hoping to help encourage him to moderate his extreme editing style, but I'll consider your suggestions. Thanks. DavidBailey 21:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I've worked with Alienus a bit. I think he's pretty good to work with usually, but you can get into a nasty pattern with him that's hard to break out of.  I see that as the useful point of an RfC, if there's to be one.  In the case of particular articles though, I'd definitely support the article RfC option, even if you go ahead with the user RfC.  I think article RfCs are an underrated feature of Wikipedia, which I've found very useful in resolving seemingly intractable disputes in the past, especially when content disputes start getting tangled up with personality conflicts...  I've also added both articles to my watchlist, so maybe I'll have more specific suggestions as time goes on.  At the very least, I'll be another voice in the fray, for whatever that's worth. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Any neutral voices in a fray are very helpful. Thank you. DavidBailey 22:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * FYI: Requests for arbitration. -Will Beback 19:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Research Survey Request
Hello, I am a member of a research group at Palo Alto Research Center (formerly known as Xerox PARC) studying how conflicts occur and resolve on Wikipedia. Due to your experience in conflict resolution on Wikipedia (e.g., as a member of the Mediation Cabal) we’re extremely interested in your insights on this topic. We have a survey at http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=400792384029 which we are inviting a few selected Wikipedians to participate in, and we would be extremely appreciative if you would take the time to complete it. As a token of our gratitude, we would like to present you with a PARC research star upon completion. Thank you for your time.

Parc wiki researcher 23:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC) PARC User Interface Research Group

FAC: Mormon handcart pioneers
Mormon handcart pioneers is currently a featured article candidate. Since this was a Mormon COTW, I figured you might be able to chime in with some useful comments. If you get the time, it would be much appreciated. --Lethargy 20:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Concordia Newsletter
NEWSLETTER

Concordia is currently trying to relaunch. I, and all the members of the ex-council, wish to welcome new members to the group. We are a group who aim to promote remaining civil, in an environment where messages can easily be interpretated wrongly.

Help out now!
We are a community, so can only work though community contributions and support. It's the helping that counts.
 * Try and help people remain civil! Talk to them, and help them in any way possible. Do not be afraid to use the talk page.
 * Give people the Civility Barnstar.
 * Make and spread some Wikitokens so people know there are people to help if they want assistance.
 * Add banners or logos to your userpage to show your support.
 * Suggest some ideas! Add 'em to the talk page.

Decision Making
The council expired one month ago, but due to the current position of the group the current council will remain until the position of the group can be assessed, and whether it would be sensible to keep Concordia going. For most decisions, however, it will be decided by all who choose to partake in discussions. I am trying to relaunch because of the vast amounts of new members we have received, demonstrating that the aims are supported.

If you wish to opt of of further talk-page communications, just let us know here.

- Ian ¹³  /t  20:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC). Kindly delivered by MiszaBot.

WikiProject Wikipedians working
This is to inform you that the project page above of which you are a listed member is being considered for deletion. Please feel free to take part in the discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians working. Thank you. Badbilltucker 19:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Quotes in Homosexuality and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
Hey! A few days ago you added some quotes to the above mentioned article. Do you think you could help me out and rewrite those two quotes in your own words, while keeping it neutral and leaving in the references, of course?

I'll be rewriting my 3 quotes as well. It's just that the article is turning into a quote farm. Chupper 04:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Homosexual agenda
Hello, DavidBailey! I was looking into the history of the article on homosexual agenda and I found an edit by you in which you deleted the phrase "especially in the United States". This phrase was referring to where the term is used. I have added a few days ago the information that "homosexual agenda" is a phrase of American origin and used only in the United States, not knowing the information had ever been in the article. I didn´t know that "homosexual agenda" was used internationally. I guess it is then used a lot more often in the United States and sometimes in other English-speaking countries as well. It is rather natural that the expression would be eventually known in other countries, yet even when it is used in other countries, it must be mostly to refer to the American debate on gay rights. Though I don´t know a research on this yet, I´m sure it is mostly used in the United States since it serves better the purposes of the American conservative people who created it and which don´t live in other countries. Would you like to explain better on the talk page what you know about this subject and help me on improving the article? Maybe there could be a section like "usage in other countries" or something. A.Z. 01:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

question
Would you like to join Conservapedia as a editor? Conservapedia is looking for good editors and Admins. Please send me your email if you want to join Conservapedia. If you feel reticient about giving out your email address you can simply create a new account at hotmail and yahoo so you don't risk getting a lot of junk mail. Regional123 01:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Regional123

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Jenny Oaks Baker-The Best Of Jenny Oaks Baker.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Jenny Oaks Baker-The Best Of Jenny Oaks Baker.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 10:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Germany Invitation
--Zeitgespenst (talk) 00:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Duty to God
A tag has been placed on Duty to God, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as the Business' FAQ for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Excirial ( Talk, Contribs ) 17:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Duty to God
I saw on User_talk:Tanthalas39's page that the page was deleted. You might ask him to move the deleted text to a sandbox for you (perhaps User:DavidBailey/Sandbox) so you can work on the article before posting again, so it doesn't get re-deleted. If you do decide to work on it again, I'd be happy to lend a hand. Just drop me a note! --Eustress (talk) 21:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have re-created the article. I feel it was unjustly deleted as the article is hardly promotional. It was speedily deleted in under a minute after its creation, so it wasn't even enough time to read the article. It was informational and about an official program of the LDS Church. There aren't going to be a lot of non-official sources for information about it. You might as well speedily delete Young Men (organization). In any case, it is now here: User:DavidBailey/Duty to God Thanks for your interest. DavidBailey (talk) 11:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Tanthalas39 saw fit to speedily delete this page even though it talks about an official LDS church program impacting some million youth around the world, even though it has multiple sources, and covers a key controversy (non-official source) about the program. As a result, initial editing will have to occur here to make it better, instead of in its official location at Duty to God. DavidBailey (talk) 12:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The article has not established notability of the organization. There is only one reference which MIGHT be considered third party.  Perhaps you could search for news articles about the organization (outside of a church owned publication).  Simply being an official church program, regardless of the number of participants, is not enough on it's own.  As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia requires that all of the facts be established in reliable NEUTRAL third-party publications. Good luck! Wikiwikikid (talk) 15:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You should review the criteria for speedy deletion, as I agree that it should have been deleted before in accordance with Wikipedia policy. I realize this might be frustrating, but you are new and will soon appreciate the rules Wikipedia has established.


 * Regarding the article, I believe it is encycopedic enough to stand on its own, but it needs a lot more information (as I noted with tags). I added some images and reworded section to avoided the "ad tone." The article is now located at Duty to God Award. Best --Eustress (talk) 19:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks Eustress. Sorry to get frustrated with the process. DavidBailey (talk) 15:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * For contributors: The article can be edited at Duty to God Award.

Thank you for your gracious message. I have an interest in LDS culture, hence my involvement. I did a slight rewrite on the Controversy section to tone down the text and keep it in vibe with how Wikipedia likes its articles. Call on me if you need help with anything else. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)



Ecoleetage (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

not really important or wiki-related
Do you know Whitney Hales? (in the movie Church Ball?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.72.25.210 (talk) 19:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Not personally. DavidBailey (talk) 10:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity
Interested in WikiProject Christianity also ?? --  Tinu  Cherian  - 10:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to CCISTF!
Welcome David, to the WikiProject Computing/Computer and Information Security task force! I wanted to stop by and say hello, as well as find out if there are any specific articles you are looking at within our scope. I am always avalible for comment, and I look forward to getting to know you! Sephiroth storm (talk) 11:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

RE:Thanks for your invitation
--  Tinu  Cherian  - 11:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 Computing articles
Hello - I'm asking everyone listed at the Computer and Information Security task force to take a look at a posting from the Wikipedia 0.7 CD release. What articles aren't there but should be? Thanks --h2g2bob (talk) 23:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Lucks logo.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Lucks logo.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 11:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Redirects
I fixed the redirect you tried to create. The proper format is " #REDIRECT Pagename ". Cheers --Ron Ritzman (talk) 20:20, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to the LGBT WikiProject!
-- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)