User talk:Ret.Prof/archive2

Archive 2 (2009)

Cloudbuster: Keep or redirect and merge?
The 2nd Articles for deletion discussion for Cloudbuster closed as "keep," with the note that "any merge/redirect discussions should take place at the relevant talk pages". However, the article was immediately merged and redirected into Orgone energy. The editor who participated in the discussion and then performed the merge believes that the merge/redirect is supported by consensus. I am posting this notice to the talk page of each of the editors who participated in the discussion, including the nominator, to ensure that this is the case. -- Shunpiker (talk) 18:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * - Thanks - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Tine_2.0
Re your not vote on this AfD, I've asked why you think notability is established, as if it is then I'll change my !vote - as that is my main concern (advertising can be cleaned up). I hope you don't think this is badgering of any kind. Thanks, Verbal   chat  08:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I read the comments and thought it was notable - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

List of fictional deer
I know it's somewhat silly, but I thought you might be interested to see what I've done with the article "List of fictional deer", which you helped to save from "nominated for deletion". Ironically, I had nothing to do with the article until then. I hope you enjoy it. --AuthorityTam (talk) 20:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I did enjoy it. - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Network television schedules
Hi Ret. Prof, Your input at Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not would be greatly appreciated. Firsfron of Ronchester 14:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

!vote at AFD
Any particular reason why you !voted to "Keep" this article, simply agreeing with an obvious sockpuppet of the creator (essentially agreeing that you've heard of a non-existent album)? OhNo itsJamie Talk 19:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I was duped! Are you sure Boxcar was a sockpuppet? - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "I've heard of it" isn't exactly the most convincing reason for keep from an account with no other contributions. And yes, Checkuser confirmed the link. I might send a few other accounts to checkuser regarding the matter, come to think of it. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 00:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds Good. Let me know of the results. By the way I will be more careful in future. Happy Editing - Ret.Prof (talk) 01:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Make another personal attack and you will be blocked. OhNo itsJamie Talk 13:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree! Let's put this behind us - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Invitation
I saw your work in several AFD's recently, I would be honored if you would consider joining the squadron.


 * Thanks for the Invitation. You do some fine work. I will think it over and let you know - Ret.Prof (talk) 02:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/J04n
Comment to Closing Bureaucrat This is an unusual case where the overwhelming consensus is that the candidate would be of great benefit to Wikipedia. Even his strongest opponent Alan16 states "Oppose – J04n seems like a reasonable editor who makes good article edits. On that front I have no problems."

Where there is no consensus is on whether or not he has enough admin. related experience. A very slight majority agree with Pascal.Tesson who explains that Adminship is not rocket science and we're doing a disservice to the project by pretending otherwise. Great candidate, clearly a net positive.

On the other hand a very substantial minority do not believe he has the experience or knowledge to be able to do the job that will be required of him. I do believe that this is an important decision where "not a vote" should be invoked. Ret.Prof (talk) 16:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for everything, you did a lot "above and beyond" and I appreciate it. I'll wait 2 or 3 months before I throw my hat in and will be more careful when I answer the questions. J04n(talk page) 15:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi there, I have a quick question. Would it have been helpful if I directly responded to the points made against me or is that frowned upon? Happy editing J04n(talk page) 19:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * "The Lawyer who defends himself has a fool for a client." Saying nothing is bad. Getting defensive is worse. The best thing would be to have one of your nominators put forward your position. However I am not sure of Wikipedia's policy about that sort of thing. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

John
Thanks A Georgian (talk) 21:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No Problem. Keep up the Good Work. - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: My RfA nomination
Hi, I wanted to take this opportunity to show my up-most sincerity and gratitude in response to your support on my RfA nomination. Thanks you from the bottom of my heart - I hope we can build a friendship upon this. Kindest regards; Gareth aka Pr3st0n (talk) 02:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds good! I really liked your most recent comment. - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I removed an image from your talk page
You had a copyrighted image of a movie poster on your talk page. I'm afraid non-free images can't be used this way, and I have removed it from your page. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No Problem. I was surprised because I got the movie poster from Wikipedia (I still have a lot to learn). In any event I have replaced it. Keep up the good work. - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You apparently do not understand the problem. The image description page for that image also has a clear copyright notice. Only free images may be used in user space. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Disappointed, but now I understand - Ret.Prof (talk) 21:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Your oppose on my RFA
Hi. Since I have withdrawn, I was wondering if you could expand on your "lack of Constructive Edits" concern? The diff you provided doesn't really clue me in as to your reasoning. Thanks. ArcAngel (talk) 18:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Good Day! I am glad you contacted me. I think you are a great guy! I have no doubt that you will make it as an admin in the near future. My oppose has more to do with me than you. I have decided to take some time and outline my feelings about Constructive Edits below. (it may take me a week to sort out my thoughts) Good luck on your next RFA. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I have moved my views on ConstEdits to my User Page


 * So why did you copy nearly the entire text from Article_Rescue_Squadron? I do not think it explains your position at all, you are merely quoting a WP page.  ArcAngel (talk) 00:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I see your point. In answer to your first question, I was really impressed with Article_Rescue_Squadron!
 * Re the "Diff"I felt you focused too much on deletion. - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * ArcAngel, please see ConstEdits. I hope this is satisfactory? - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

2 Peter minor edits:
I think changing II Peter to 2 Peter is fine, but not in quotes A Georgian (talk) 19:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

wikipedia-watch
I have mixed feelings about these guys - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

...teachable moment..
...Thanq for those really kind and touching words at my RFA. I am humbled. Have a gr8 day! --  Tinu  Cherian  - 15:10, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Epistle of Jude
I noted that you rewrote and expanded the lead paragraph of this article. Whether or not the use of the correct word ("penultimate" is a perfectly correct word) should be discouraged in favor of "simple" language is a moot question, and I won't revert this change :).

My difficulty lies with the expansion: "and is attributed Jude [sic], the brother of James the Just (who was the brother of Jesus)". This is an oversimplification of the matter dealt with in the first paragraph of the "Composition" section.

1. The letter states in the address formula that the author is "Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and a brother of James", nothing more, and nothing less. 2. Whether this Jude himself is/was an apostle (traditional attribution) is open for speculation. 3. The author is a brother of "James". Whether this James is/was an apostle (either one of the two!) is open for speculation. Alternatively, whether this James is "James the Just" is open to speculation.

Therefore, I think that your expansion is not adequate; it is based on assumptions without any basis in the letter itself.

Moreover, the first paragraph of the section that you renamed "Composition" should also be rewritten, especially as regards the POV against Roman Catholics. "Roman Catholic" exegesis comprises a broad bunch, with varying opinions!

Keep up the good work! --Dampinograaf (talk) 13:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Very Reasonable. This article needs work. Your ideas are constructive. Thanks for the note. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Book of Revelation
The source used in your addition (or perhaps restitution) of text to this article is not admissible as a reliable source. On googling 'xulon press' the first thing one sees is: "Christian self publishing company Xulon Press makes Christian book publishing affordable for Christian authors and writers using print on demand technology." The text sourced by the work in question ought not be re-added. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 16:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. I will do some more reading. Ret.Prof (talk) 17:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Any Better - Robert J. Karris (ed.) The Collegeville Bible Commentary Liturgical Press, 1992 p. 1296. - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Liberal for my taste, but a RS nonetheless :) Thanks. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 18:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You forced me to do a little reading which is a good thing. I am also adding

Ken Bowers, Hiding in plain sight, Cedar Fort, 2000. p 175

Bernhard Pick, The Talmud: What It Is and What It Knows of Jesus and His Followers, Kessinger Publishing, LLC, 2007. p 113

strike - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Douglas Connelly, The Bible for blockheads, Zondervan,  1999 p. 457
 * Thanks again for the way you handled the situation. - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello. I agree with Carl that your source does constitute a reliable source, but I wanted to let you know that, even so, I reverted your latest edit to Book of Revelation.  The reason I reverted is that there are many interpretations of the theme / meaning of the book (see the relevant Interpretations section of the article), and it would not be right to assert one particular view in the lead paragraph.  To do so would be to make a value judgement in what should essentially be a piece of reporting.  Especially with religious topics it can sometimes be difficult to present a neutral point of view.  A simple rule to follow is to assert facts, including facts about opinions, but do not assert the opinions themselves. 152.16.16.75 (talk) 23:51, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yesterday I would have disagreed with you, but after reading through the literature, I see there are many, many, strange interpretations of the book. To assert any one will upset people. "A simple rule to follow is to assert facts, including facts about opinions, but do not assert the opinions themselves. "  is great stuff and is now part of my Wikipedia approach.  Thanks for taking the time to help. - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:19, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It is such a pleasure to meet someone who can say "Yesterday I would have disagreed with you, but..." Your response prompted me to check your other talk page comments and your user page.  I like your approach to the project and the way you interact with others.  Thank you for taking the time to contribute to Wikipedia.  152.16.16.75 (talk) 01:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Editor Review
I would appreciate your comment, if you don't mind. Irbisgreif (talk) 23:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Be glad to comment. - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment at RfA
Hi there. I noticed a comment that you made here which is an undisguised jibe at a remark I passed earlier in the oppose section. In describing his frequent use of WP:FUCK as puerile I was criticising his action as being childish. Other contributors had also expressed concern about it. I was suggesting that he was using vulgarity too frequently, a tactic which might offend some community members and attract oppose !votes.

This is not the same thing as calling him puerile, as another contributor quickly pointed out. I believe my comment stayed on the right side of civility. As someone with a degree in Law and as a professional writer, you will well know that words and the order in which they are placed are all important.

So why am I here? Well I take your remark here: ''“….but some of the other stuff is exactly why we need good admins like you. I hope you have a thick skin and persevere for you will puerile prevail,…”'' as a not so veiled personal attack on my description of his actions and therefore on me (essentially as an editor who needs to be dealt with by an admin.).

That you felt if necessary to denigrate another editor for their correct use of English is disappointing. I think it is a puerile (childish, immature and silly) comment and provocative. Please do not take my bluntness personally. I think civility is important as well as honesty when trying to help candidates improve their potential. Maybe the 3 of us should each consider this !

Enjoy your day. Leaky Caldron  11:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time to explain your position. You were right that I did take offense at your comment, but after carefully reading your explanation I feel much better better about it. Thank again for taking the time. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC) PS Your rebuke was very well done. Brutally tough but polite. I also liked


 * Thanks Prof., I appreciate that! Leaky  Caldron  13:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

ad captandum vulgaris
What is a recall pledge and how is it enforced? Is it simply a ploy to "capture the will of the crowd"? - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Dumelow's RFA
Hello! You edited my !vote at Dumelow's RFA. I assume this was inadvertent. Best wishes! GreenGourd (talk) 00:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 *  Oups or is that Oops. In any event us old guys can get a little confused now and again, but editing your vote was a first for me. Sorry - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for a Job Well Done and Note
This is very inappropriate. You'll find I also am now opposing Chzz's RFA, but comments like this are entirely out of line and unfair to Chzz. Stop making these notices at once or you will be blocked for harassment. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 18:42, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have stopped, but further information would be helpful? - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I rolled the remaining ones back. Notices like that are effectively grave dancing and borderline trolling.  It's exceptionally inappropriate.  If you honestly can't see the problem then leave me a note on my talk page and I'll explain it. Protonk (talk) 18:55, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I second what Hersfold said above. There is no reason for you to be thanking people for opposing, just causes further friction and isn't anywhere near helpful especially during this RFA. --Coffee // have a cup  // ark  // 18:55, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * x2 I'm not sure what further information is needed here. Your messages were inappropriate; it does seem very likely that Chzz's RFA will fail because of the alleged sockpuppetry issue. You've no reason to rub salt in the wound by thanking people for opposing, and on top of that make unsubstantiated statements of bad faith against him, particularly in an area where he is neither aware of your comments nor easily able to respond. It's called tact; while you may not agree with Chzz, it's no cause to go on a character assassination rampage. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 18:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Those were very inappropriate. What more info do you want that can be posted on wiki? There are very significant privacy issues here.  — Rlevse • Talk  • 18:57, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

.

Thank you for taking the time to provide the further information I requested. I will deal with your concerns one by one.


 * Clarification of the facts: (RfA and Wikipedia: Sockpuppet Investigations ) - Although I agree that Chzz is a fine editor . . . at the end of October I had concerns that he would not make a good admin. This concern was compounded by the fact that his RfA Support was between 80 and 85%. I took the following position. At the end of RfA  I thanked a handful of editors for the good work they had done (Not for which way they'd voted) I also left the following note for Chzz.


 * You've "no reason to rub salt in the wound by thanking people for opposing" - This and other similar comments go to the heart of the issue. I did not thank anybody for opposing. I thanked people for the good work they did. If these people had come up with information clearing Chzz of wrong doing none would have been happier than I. I still would have sent a thanq note


 * Your "comments like this are entirely out of line" - I respectfully disagree. My comments were honest and well founded.


 * You were "unfair to Chzz" - I never said that Chzz was a bad editor but rather I felt that he was not suited to being an admin which in this RfA fell within fair comment guidelines.


 * Blocked for Harassment - at no time did my comment equal "Harassment" pursuant to Wikipedia guidelines.


 * You were "effectively grave dancing". - WRONG, I get no pleasure when people get caught up in wrongdoing!


 * Borderline trolling. - WRONG, I do not troll.


 * If you honestly can't see the problem. - I took offense at my honesty being called into question. Assume good faith.


 * Your thanqs were not "helpful especially during this RFA" - This is a valid point. Although the RfA was a de facto failure when I thanked people, it would not be de juris for another few hours. In future I will thank people for their good work only after two weeks have elapsed from the close of the RfA.


 * There are very significant privacy issues here. I did not at any time breech any privacy guidelines. (I hope)

This is the way I see things. If anyone would like to provide further information, you are most welcome. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Chzz's RfA
Let me repeat my thanks for your kind words on my talk page. It has occurred to me that I forgot to mention that the Everything (software) issue, discussed at the RfA, is still at AfD. It looks to me like a borderline case. Although we may "see things differently", I respect your powers of analysis, and that discussion might benefit from some input from you, one way or the other. Happy editing! --RexxS (talk) 19:42, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me say that you earned my respect. You provided evidence at a time when most people were against you. I always like it when people take a stand for what is right, against overwhelming odds. - Ret.Prof (talk) 11:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC) PS I looked at Everything and think it should be kept.

You remind me of someone . ..
But I can't think who. When it occurs to me, I'll let you know. :) Crafty (talk) 11:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery ;) - Ret.Prof (talk) 11:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

in re Everything (software)
Thank you for your comment pro Everything (software) at its deletion discussion. I believe your statement of amity toward Joe Chill may have tipped the scales in favor of keeping it. In any case, I'm glad you took the time to state your opinion, doubly glad because it helped save the article. Yappy2bhere (talk) 21:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What can I say . . . If Joe and I are on the same side it had to be a great article. - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:12, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:GHITS
Hey there. I have noticed you making several comments at AfD like this one. Could I please ask you to expand a bit more on your votes? A closing administrator is likely to ignore your comments if they are not substantiated enough as "a large number of hits on a search engine is no guarantee that the subject is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia." Thanks, NW ( Talk ) 23:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I totally agree that "a large number of hits on a search engine is no guarantee that the subject is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia." Nor do I try to spin GHits. If something gets a lot of hits I simply make a link. You admins can within a few seconds ascertain the probative value. By the way, I have found myself agreeing with Admin decisions 95% of the time! (which may or may not be a good thing) - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Media bias in India
Though I have writing to wiki I am new to Wikipolitics. "Media bias in India" got deleted by comments and votes of those who either did not care, did not know or had vested interests. I will be thankful if you can create or revoke and allow an article of that nature mature. I only write and lack energy and time to fight politics. Thank you for the support, ~rAGU (talk)
 * I would love to help you, but I do not yet have the skills or knowledge for the job. I hope that you do not give up on Wikipedia for the "problem users" do not represent the majority who good and gifted people. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Jerome
Hiya, I am new to wikipedia. I'm thinking of making the article on Jerome a pet project. I see that you have made some recent edits on this. Would you be willing to help me on this?Gimbini (talk) 04:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That would be great. The debates between Jerome and the other Church Fathers give insight into the history of Christianity, but Jerome is a massive undertaking. Be bold and do not be worried about changing stuff but remember to "Cite your sources". As you may have noticed I like ex. links to Google Books. Good Luck. - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Fribbulus Xax's RfA

 * Thank you for making yourself available to serve at Wikipedia. - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure, glad I could help
- Dank (push to talk) 21:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Unfulfilled religious predictions
In your response to my AfD, you said that this page was "a great article in every way". Now, really, we may disagree on whether it should be deleted or fixed, but I cannot believe that you (apparently a religious scholar) would find this a great article. From this article, I learned that there were no unfulfilled prophecies prior to the third century, one in the next 1500 years and eleven in the twentieth century. Benny Hinn by himself tripled the number of false prophecies that occurred between 200AD and 1700AD.

Obviously, the article needs work. Perhaps you could contribute to it? I honestly know nothing about the history of Christianity or other religions, but part of the problem with the article is that dull entertainers take up more space than serious historical figures. I know that biblical scholarship isn't the same thing as church history, but it's a sight closer than my knowledge.

Just a thought. I'm always eager to volunteer someone else to do work. Phiwum (talk) 04:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have been pondering what you said. You have made your point. I still think the topic should not be deleted, but the article itself is a bit harsh on Christians. Also I was a bit harsh with my "balderdash" comment. Sorry! I also agree to your request. - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Please watch your edit summaries, such as the last one. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * POINT TAKEN! - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This article has now been saved. I plan slow careful referenced editing. Ret.Prof (talk) 15:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Religion & Hans Kung Mentorship
I have a basic problem with religion. As a priest, pastor and professor this may sound strange.

A religion tends to be a group of people who think the same, and if anyone questions anything they get kicked out. What Jesus teaches tends to go against this. Reflecting, questioning, debating etc not only keep religion from being boring, but lead to growth and (at least in my case) bring one closer to God.

Therefore when the Vatican rescinded Kung's authority to teach Catholic theology because of his book, ''Infallible? An Inquiry'' (1971) it was most upsetting!

I also strongly agree with "There will be no peace among the nations without peace among the religions. There will be no peace among the religions without dialogue among the religions."

I hope this answers your email. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for thoughtful comments which help establish a context for small steps in a constructive direction.


 * As a gesture of appreciation, may I share a rhetorical question from the Analects of Confucius: "Is it not pleasant to learn with a constant perseverance and application?"


 * Please contact me by e-mail or on my talk page.--Tenmei (talk) 07:13, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Avraham
Not meaning to be rude but if you are going to refactor my comments as you did here wiht a subject line I never introduced please first have the basic common decency to notify me of what you've done, and secondly please not actually repeat the code error  that meant I had to ammed your entry in the first place. If you lack the technical competence to work the templates that's fine - just stop using them until you know how to or ask for help. Pedro : Chat  20:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think your rude. Nor do I take offence at you pointing out my lack the technical competence. I'm still not sure how this became this which became this Sorry about the mix up. There is still a minor "refactor" problem (My name is outside the box!) . . . but I dare not try to fix it again ! ! Thanks for bringing this to my attention - Ret.Prof (talk) 21:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed good sir . I suspect you may have copied the code from somewhere. You need to ensure to close templates using  |}  - often (not everytime) on another line (i.e. after a carriage return). Sorry for not putting your username back in - I had erroneously assumed you meant it to be outside the box. I'm no great coder but I know enough that if you're not sure the code will work - don't use it! If using a template add some random text after and use preview to make sure it looks okay and that it's not going to carry on for the rest of the page. Happy editing! Pedro :  Chat  21:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I will eventually get the hang of things. -  Ret.Prof (talk) 21:51, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem and you're welcome. I think "eventually" is not my gist - I don't mean to insult a learned man. The written medium lacks many nuances and the wikimedia markup is rough so communication is sub-optimal. I've no doubt on your ability generally but this was a simple "heads up" in terms of expectations on Wikipedia (refactoring threads) and a pointer (code). Best wishes and Happy editing! Pedro : Chat  22:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I laughed when you called me a learned man. The truth is I am a humble man who has a lot to be humble about. Thanks for the help and happy editing - Ret.Prof (talk) 01:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your kind words (and 1337 coding 5|<i11z); they are much appreciated :) -- Avi (talk) 04:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Regarding "mistakes"; we knew what was meant, and I believe it is accurate for most 'crats, if not for me face-grin.svg. -- Avi (talk) 15:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Glad you have a sense of humour! I really should have caught that.  All the best. - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Nihonjoe RfB
I thought your comments at Nihonjoe RfB quite interesting. As I've been accused of being in an edit war today, I'm taking the chicken approach and laying low, but the way this RfB has been handled is quite upsetting to me. -- SPhilbrick  T  22:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it looks to me like a good guy is being trashed as a pervert - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't concede for him yet. Any reviewing crat will have to give weight to all the arguments on both sides.  The oppose arguments related purely to the one incident with Ryan will hopefully be given very little weight since they are misinformed and seeing one key negative word and assuming he condones it.   7  02:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I hope you are right. This is a watershed event for me. If he passes, I'll be encouraged that wise people can overlook misguided opposes. If he fails, I'll feel quite discouraged.-- SPhilbrick  T  15:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The same goes for me. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Your words caught my attention: "People who grow in knowledge and wisdom should be affirmed. Not giving up is a good thing." --Tenmei (talk) 21:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you think my words were a good thing? - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course. The homiletic style marries generally accepted truths with the concept of movement or change, i.e., Wikipedia evolves with each new edit, Nihonjoe learns from experiences, we each grow as we participate, etc.  Subtle, below-the-radar, etc.  I hadn't recognized that this venue presents opportunities which you grasped effectively. --Tenmei (talk) 22:25, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, your words caught my attention: "... you handled yourself well. You did not fail Wikipedia, rather we failed you! Most of the opposes were just stampeded ...." Another timely gesture. --Tenmei (talk) 17:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The RfB is still on hold. I guess this is not an easy decision for them. - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I have been reading the Crat Chat and it is going to be a close call. However, I am happy with the way Crats are doing their job. - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It does seem that the right thing is going to happen :) Thanks for your encouragement, I didn't want to feel alone. hydnjo (talk) 04:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm late to the party, but they did the right thing.-- SPhilbrick  T  16:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I must say that it taught me a bit about myself. This was a watershed event for me too. I am quite encouraged. - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Merge discussion
I closed Articles for deletion/Thomas K. Dye as merge. User:Barberio disputed this close and opened a deletion review, which was closed as the admin argued that merge closes are not considered at DRV. I merged the material to Newshounds and redirected the article; Barberio has reverted the redirect, though the material remains merged. A discussion on the merge is at Talk:Newshounds; your participation would be welcome. Fences &amp;  Windows  01:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. Merge seems reasonable. - Ret.Prof (talk) 04:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

NPOV
Hey, I've seen a lot of good work you put into expanding and improving articles with cited sources. Good job on that! However, I have one minor concern I felt like bringing to your intention so hopefully you can make your contributions all the more better! I found a couple of NPOV violations. We need to keep in mind the audience and context of Wikipedia. Referring to Jesus as "the Lord" isn't NPOV, for hopefully obvious reasons. Similarly, referring to the Bible or the New Testament as "the Holy Scripture" is also not NPOV. I know in some scholarly contexts, and definitely in many religious contexts, these rules are opposite. So we may be accustom to writing in a certain manner outside of Wikipedia. Just wanted to pass this kind note along to remind you of our Manual of Style and NPOV. Thanks for your consideration. -Andrew c [talk] 18:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Andrew
 * 1) Thanks for the nice or kind way of sorting me out.
 * 2) You are absolutely right
 * 3) As an old Theologian and Biblical Scholar, I will work very hard at dropping the lingo.
 * Thanks again - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Kind Words
Thanks for the kind words. We will miss you! - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

External links are not references
This change makes me think that you're on the wrong page. WP:EL has nothing to do with WP:CITEs for WP:Reliable sources. It looks like you're thinking of WP:Convenience links, which are all about proper sources.My impression of the community's impossible view is that driving all of our readers to a single commercial source is highly undesirable, and that we should all provide such links whenever possible, or at least five minutes before some other editor wished it was there. There are some good reasons to prefer WP:Magic words; any recommendation on this point should probably at least mention PMID and ISBN in that context.If you're not aiming for change, but simply trying to address a single dispute, then the convenience link essay will probably be sufficient. If not, try starting a discussion at WT:CITE. Happy editing, WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time to help. If I understand correctly sites that have been used as sources in the creation of an article should be cited in the article, and linked as references, either in-line or in a references section. Links to these source sites are not "external links" for the purposes of the "external links" guideline, and should not normally be duplicated in an external links section. Exceptions (i.e. sites that can be both references and External Links) include an official site of the article's subject, or a domain specifically devoted to the article's subject which contains multiple subpages and which meets the above criteria. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, that all sounds right to me. Additionally, other pages (i.e., not WP:EL) will tell you that if you're citing a book with an ISBN, then you should always include the ISBN, even if you also choose to link to the text through Gutenberg Press, books.google, or some other online option.   WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

RfA thankspam


Can you please fix RFA thankspam on my Talk page.
Congratz on becoming an admin. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ Ged  UK  14:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * THANKS! - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, and thanks again! KV5  ( Talk  •  Phils ) 15:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. Best wishes our new Admin - Ret.Prof (talk) 21:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

RfA Thanks
MrKIA11 (talk) 12:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Congratz on becoming an admin. Best wishes - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy Holidays
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">

J04n(talk page) is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Xmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hannukah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding to your friends' talk pages.
 * Thanks, Your message was what I needed. - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Re Coffee Conflict
Admin Coffee and I were into some serious conflict. Coffee, then I noticed some of the kind words you wrote. You almost gave an old geeser (me) a heart attack. Thanks ! Hope things go well for you not only on Wikipedia but also in the real world. Thanks again - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I’m late to the, um, “party” isn’t the right word. I just read the exchange with Coffee. Quite surprising, and especially the way it ended. Kudos. SPhilbrick  T  21:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * We tend to see editors as either "good guys" or "bad guys" . . . in terms of "black" and "white" when most of us are shades of gray like Coffee and me. Add to that there is a lot of anger towards Admins. To my horror I found I was leading a lynch mob. But what really surprised me were Coffee's kind words. In any event things worked out well. Happy Holidays - Ret.Prof (talk) 10:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As to what I mean about a lot of anger toward Admins . . . this is what I mean. Sidestepping the process gives the appearance of wrong doing and corruption. "Not only must Justice be done; it must also be seen to be done" This particularly true of organizations that depend on donations and volunteers. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:darkred; background-color:lightgreen; border-width:5px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">

MisterWiki is wishing you Happy Holidays! MisterWiki  talk   contribs  wishes you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year with all of your family, spread love during this times!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding to your friends' talk pages. MisterWiki  talk   contribs  20:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you...
...for the kind wish on my talk page. And a Happy Holidays to you and yours as well. Pedro : Chat  15:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Me too! Best wishes. matt (talk) 16:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
for the Holiday wishes, right back atcha.-- SPhilbrick  T  18:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

More Thanks
The holiday wishes were much appreciated! Happy Holidays! GreenGourd (talk) 19:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Can't thank you enough
Thank you very much. The last thing I was expecting as an anon editor was to be remembered for the holidays. You just made my day. Merry Christmas! 152.16.16.75 (talk) 10:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Your good work makes you memorable! Ret.Prof (talk) 12:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

First Year
2009 was my first year of "active" editing. There were so very many people who helped me that it is impossible to thank them all. As this is a very busy time of the year for me, I will be off line for the next few weeks. See you all in the new year. Until then Happy Editing. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:35, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">

A NobodyMy talk is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding to their talk page with a friendly message. To those who make Good Arguments, who are appreciative, or supportive. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 23:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas
Thank you for the warm greeting a couple weeks ago. I hope you're having a blessed Christmas season. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 17:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)