User talk:David L Rattigan
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Vandalism in Willy Wonka
To get rid of the vandalism, you can check out Wikipedia:Dealing with vandalism. I've already removed it from the article. Generally, it gets removed pretty quickly. If the person continues to vandalize the page, you can place them on Wikipedia:Vandalism in Progress. If you see them do it, you can leave a message on their talk page, politely asking them to stop--try using {{test}}. If they don't stop, you can request a block at Wikipedia:Administrators' Noticeboard/Incidents. Best wishes, Meelar (talk) 06:38, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] deleted link
That link was one of thirty-one that 24.48.248.11 added, all to the same magazine, his only activity here to date. I call it spam. If you judge that it was a valuable link to that article you should put it back in, but the rest are toast. Meggar 18:10, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)
[edit] failure magazine wonka article
I feel you are correct. It is rare and informative; I have put it back. Ayeroxor 23:41, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] New Perspective on Paul
I notice the New Perspective on Paul article you created seems to contradict the section on the topic found in the Paul of Tarsus article. Perhaps you'd like to comment at Talk:New Perspective on Paul. Jayjg (talk) 23:53, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Hello from a fellow Gay Christian
Hi David,
some really interesting stuff you have there. Just thought I would pop by and leave a friendly message. One of your broken links is no longer broken as I have started the Religious Education article but it needs considerable editing I think. Looking forward to working on articles of common interest. Davidkinnen 11:22, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Hi David, thanks for the updates on the Religious Education page. Davidkinnen 09:33, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] The Mummy's Shroud
David, with regard to your comment on the talk page of The Mummy's Shroud article, the article has to be deleted per Wikipedia's copyright rules, but it is deleted without prejudice. So you are free to rewrite if you wish. I was the person who tagged it, but there is absolutely no issue with the subject itself and I would welcome you writing a new article. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 16:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Cheers for revert
Thanks for the revert on my Userpage Davidkinnen 18:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Talk page comments
I notice from the edits you have made on a number of talk pages you tend to make them at the top of the page. This is the reverse of the normal which is to place the in strict chronological top to bottom sequence. The does exclude clearly indicated exceptional pages and responses to topic which are inserted (again chonologically - top to bottom) relative to the topic being responded to. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 09:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- Hmm, something gave me the opposite impression, ie that recent comments belonged at the top, but I can't remember where I picked up that habit. I'll check the norm on each page in the future. Cheers. David L Rattigan 10:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] WikiProject advertising
This is a more difficult one. I have a little experience here and it does take time (assuming the interest is there). The best way to attract is by having activity on the page, obvious content being provided to the encyclopedia, and an obvious way to contribute. Talk page notices are good, Userboxes are good but of limited advertising effect. Worklists, things to do structures etc. are also useful. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 09:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Reply to ALC
Thanks for your message. The thing is, though, I'm a member of ALC and know several people who are currently sudying on the academy and more who've graduated in years gone by. Whenever I talk to them about it, I get nothing but 100% positive feedback on it. Also, there are students on the academy from overseas, which is a good sign when people are prepared to travel thousands of miles to attend. That's why I put "highly rated" on there.
But anyway, you know Wikipedia better than I do...
Ricky
[edit] Another reply...
OK, thanks for your help. I'll make sure in the future to follow that advice.
[edit] My response to Yy-bo/Akidd dublin
I've added it to the mediation page as requested. It's not very nice. It's as nice as I can make it. The guy is a loon. Oh, and beware, he's a major homophobe too; you should see his definition of "gay" as "sexual flavoring for entertainment purpose not for all". Fnarf999 19:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Wrt to the above case that you're mediating, I have previously suggested to Akidd/Yy-Bo that he might find editing wikipedia in his own language more rewarding, and pointed him towards Main_Page#Wikipedia_languages, (as he has never said what his native language is, despite being asked several times) I considered adding this idea to the mediatation case, but as I had mentioned it to him previously, was concerned that it could be seen as driving someone away (not to mention that he did think I was "coming from a biased position", so he might possibly just ignore it). If there is a wikipedia in his language, that might be the best all round, as he would still be contributing to the wikipedia project, but without the language issues. Regards, MartinRe 23:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Greetings and Thanks!
Hello David!
Just stopping by to thank you for your comments on the Every Nation Talk Page. I appreciate knowing now what you pointed out. I'm obviously very new to this! Let me know how I might be able to help in the WikiProject you have going on.
Warm Regards, Thelma Bowlen 08:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Every Nation mediation
Hey David, I didn't even know you made any comments at all ... the talk page has become so unweildy that I've had to make my replies in separate sections. Blueboy96 16:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] mediation and handeling problems
OK now we can start a real discussion of the issue. BTW you can respond here so this is less confusing, I"ll monitor this page. I don't know whether you been involved in mediated threads before but I'm not just another editor. I am by definition on that board because communication had broken down. Pretty much as a mediator Its "my job" to regulate conversation flow on that talk page so as to rebuild the relationships needed for the participants to be able to function constructively. I'm going to explain to you what I did and why but it may take a while to go down.
Right now you are pretty upset. When it became obvious that you weren't willing to just let me delete you comments I needed to deflect them. I did not want Blueboy under any circumstances attempting to defend his actions. The more he defends them the more he mentally owns them and the more difficulty he'll have in reversing them. If he can't bring himself to reverse then this could end up being a disciplinary matter, we could end up seeing people getting recruited to POV push sort of like the Jews vs. the NewNazi debates all over wikipedia. I wanted Blueboy to mentally distance himself from the article, but forcing him to recall (or worse) to defend statements in the article go completely against that goal. I had him starting to work constructively on eliminating POV and OR your comments were going to make that more difficult. That is I don't disagree with the content I disagreed with bringing it up at all. By treating you as the one in the wrong BlueBoy didn't have any need to defend himself. Meanwhile you are more likely to back down next time I try and regulate your conversations. And for the next month or so the talkpage is regulated. Slowly I'll be backing off more and more and more but right now I'm pretty clearly running the board Misha and Thelma and Blueboy talk to me they aren't directly addressing each other. And if you want to participate I want you to do the same thing.
Blueboy didn't bother defend himself and you are now taking your complaint regarding his behavior with me. And that's what I want.
Let me show you an example of how I would have liked you to handle this [1]. This was just from yesterday. Same sort of thing, Jareth shows up makes a change arguing that a bunch of links are a violation of WP:EL. I delete him comments and revert his changes. Sigmafactor reverts me (since he's new and doesn't think I should be changing talk pages) and Jareth agrees that I should remove his comment and removes them himself. He understands that if a mediator deletes his comments there is a good reason. Now I assumed that a guy with a year's experience would know better which is why I simply deleted you without the explanation. Why did you not assume that I had a very good reason for doing what I was doing? Make sense? jbolden1517Talk 16:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
- Sure it makes sense now you explain it. I've done one mediation myself, but only seen one or two others take place. I had no idea why my comments had been deleted, and (naive as this may sound to you) was under no impression that a mediator had any more right to edit talk pages in such a way than any other user, and so responded with a reversion, as I would have with any user who deleted what I perceived as legitimate comments with no reason given.
- It wasn't the deletion that upset me, but your response, which was to treat me like a troll and accuse me of making a personal attack. Surely pointing out a potential policy violation (even if it turns out to be mistaken) is not a personal attack? You could easily have made your point without making me out to be a destructive trouble-maker.
- I have no beef with Blueboy himself, and no complaint about his behaviour to sort out. When I made that comment (which seriously I intended as a passing helpful observation, not a complaint or accusation, which is why I couched my introductory comments in "take it or leave it" language), I had just read Blueboy's comments about "smoking guns". To make an argument (in an article) such as Smoking Gun A + Smoking Gun B = C would be original research, unless the argument was verified elsewhere. So I really thought I was being helpful when I said there was a danger of the case being based on original research.
- My only issue now is the way my comments were treated like a personal attack in the same league as "she's a cultist"/"he's a fanatic". When I asked why the comments were deleted, all I heard was "they were a personal attack", and I prolonged the thread to defend myself from that charge. Then your next response I could only interpret as a blatant personal attack on me, which totally confused me, as I still had no idea what I had done that was so offensive.
- In retrospect, I wish you had just explained in the first place what I'd done wrong, as my continuing responses were due to my confusion over what was going on. If you'd dropped a message on my talk page explaining the deletion as you did above, I'm sure it wouldn't have escalated.
- Anyway, thanks for taking the time to come over here and discuss it. Cheers. David L Rattigan 17:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- I haven't seen any fireworks in over a week. If you'd like to come back and get involved in the topic you are certainly welcome. jbolden1517Talk 11:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Jesus movement in Afghanistan
David, I am personally aware of missionaries who were in Afghanistan and considered themselves associated with the Jesus/Charismatic movements and/or Pentecostalism. I will try to get some factual details but I rather doubt that there will be formal or published records. Nevertheless there was a connection.
In the United Kingdom the distinction between Pentecostals and those in the Charismatic movement is not always very clear. There is considerable overlap or crossing over.
I have added a comment on the scope of the Charismatic Christianity page. I am interested in trying to get to a fairly comprehensive view of the history of the movement(s) and, despite a fairly strong personal convictions, am determined to maintain a NPOV. But the subject is lilely to raise controversy and starting with a ssmaller scope, possibly to expand later may be expedient Johnmarkh 19:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia:Wikiproject Horror/Collaboration of the month
Hi! I noticed your name on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Horror membership list and am writing to all members who have not voted for the Collaboration of the month. Today is the designated selection day to choose the collaboration, but we currently have a tie between the two articles receiving the most votes, John Carpenter and Dario Argento. I am hoping to remedy this by drumming up a few more votes. Note that by voting for any nominated article (not limited to these two) you are indicating your "commitment to support and aid in collaborating on that specific article if it is chosen," so please feel absolutely free to ignore this message if for any reason you don't wish or would not be able to participate.--Fuhghettaboutit 22:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Homosexual agenda
Please comment on the Homosexual agenda talk page regarding my concerns with conflating all traditional morality has holding homosexuality unacceptable. This is simply untrue with many faiths; Buddhism, Taoism, Hinduism, Greek paganism. Abrahamic is a much better term to use. Globeism 22:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Your edit to Health and Wealth Gospel
Your recent edit to Health and Wealth Gospel was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // Tawkerbot2 08:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image Tagging for Image:Frankensteinandthemonsterfromhell.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Frankensteinandthemonsterfromhell.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 18:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion
Hello! I noticed that you have identified yourself as an Anglican, and so I thought that you may be interested in checking out a new WikiProject - WikiProject Anglicanism. Please consider signing up and participating in this collaborative effort to improve and expand articles related to Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion! Cheers! Fishhead64 23:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] License tagging for Image:Jenniferdaniel.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Jenniferdaniel.jpg. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 12:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Additions to Closed Deletion Debates
I have reverted your additions to Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion#3RR .E2.86.92 Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. This was a closed debate and once a debate is closed, it should not be modified. I recognize that some of the referenced redirects were not properly dealt with and are still tagged. I have posted a comment to the closing admin so he can deal with them (delete based upon the existing debate or perhaps re-list). You may wish to make your keep comment to him. Thanks. -- JLaTondre 22:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
- No problem. That closure was a bit unusual as it spanned quite a few redirects at once. -- JLaTondre 23:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] My talk page
See my user page.
RickyMac267
[edit] Clyde Edgerton
Thank you for contributing a category.-Bri 15:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] NPR
Waiting for a reponse if the source I located was suitable. - MSTCrow 00:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Vancouver Wikipedians Meetup
Greetings, you're getting this spam (courtesy of Tawkerbot) because you were listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Vancouver. In short, we're trying to have a meetup and we'd appreciate it if you'd join our Yahoo Group setup to figure out a time/place that would work. You can find the group at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vancouver_wikipedians/. If you have any questions feel free to make a post there or on the WikiProject page.
Happy Editing!
[edit] Noel Rawsthorne
I can't believe I didn't make that article already! Well done :-) Just zis Guy you know? 12:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Flame2.jpg)
 |
This file may be deleted. |
Thanks for uploading Image:Flame2.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image can be used under a fair use license. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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.
If you have uploaded other fair use 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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Valentinian (talk) 20:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
This image is not related in itself to Charismatic Christianity, so fair use does not apply in this case. Fair use would only apply if it was needed for an article on fires, combustion or a similar topic. Please use a different image. Happy editing. Valentinian (talk) 20:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 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
[edit] Jolly Roger
Dear sir
Re. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jolly Roger Restaurant, I am seeking consensus. Toward meeting your interests, the topic already exists in improved and in complete form, per Wikipedia standards, in context, at Lake City, Seattle, Washington#Storied past. The piece was chopped out by a newbie. The damage was soon repaired, and I've been trying to clean up this uprooted duplicate leftover. For Wikipedia quality, I would prefer disposing of this odd snippet, rather than leaving a scrap lying about. I am the original researcher and author of the topic in the article, post [2]. The Jolly Roger story is an integral part of the character of Lake City, but it is otherwise not particularly encyclopedic.
So toward consenus, would you change your vote? Thank you for your consideration. --GoDot 11:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC), (ed.) --19:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Dear sir
I am seeking consensus. Toward meeting your interests, have you any further concerns I might address? Please let me know. Otherwise, we are very close to consenus: Would you change your vote to delete? Thank you for your consideration. --GoDot 19:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
We are so very close to consenus. Toward that end, have you any concerns I might address? Please let me know. Would you change your vote to delete--or at least to neutral? Thank you for your response. --GoDot 16:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Opinion
Hello,
I found you almost at random from your Christian Wikipedian tag. I did a lot of work on the Criticism section of the Ouija. I added some criticism that I found from various sources and tried quote the people who made the criticism.
There is now a New Age Wikipedian who is very determined to dispute the section based solely on the fact that many of the critics cited were Christian. Somehow he thinks that shows bias. Can you read the article or that section in particular and see what you think?
I assume that he is going to want to either argue against each criticism trying to show its invalidness or he is going to want to remove stuff. I don't think that it is the place to dispute the criticisms or the veracity of the people because they do hold these beliefs and and they did say or write these things. What should be done, I really don't want to have an edit war with this character but if he is going to let his beliefs get into the way the article will suffer for it. There are things in the article that I believe are incorrect or false but beliefs cited are actually believed by some people and I don't try to change or remove them in order to get an agenda across. Any help or suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Dwain 14:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Deleted article
Hi, this is RickyMac267. Thanks for showing me the page you linked to on my talk page.
