User talk:Donama/archivelist/2009-09-09

This page is an archive (2007-03-24—2009-09-09). Please do not alter it in any way. Archived by — Donama (talk) 07:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Meetup on 23rd April 2007

Hi Donama,

Apologies if you're already aware of this, but I'd like to let you know that the second Adelaide Meetup will take place on Monday 23rd of April at ZUMA Caffe, 56 Gouger Street, Adelaide. The meeting is at 7:30am for breakfast with Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales. Please see Wikipedia:Meetup/Adelaide/Meetup 2 for more details and indicate if you might attend.

Thanks,–cj | talk 14:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
NB: The above message is being delivered to users who are listed at WikiProject Adelaide or in Category:Wikipedians in South Australia with AutoWikiBrowser.

Good to see you're still about Donama. I hope to see you there :)--cj | talk 15:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I almost did too (ack, mornings!). It went well; I think we had a turnout of around 20. Jimmy had to run of early to a press conference though. There's always next time :)--cj | talk 00:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Notability of Krystal Forscutt

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Krystal Forscutt, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Krystal Forscutt seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Krystal Forscutt, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 12:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Başkale

i have unprotected the article Alex Bakharev 04:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Re:Location of reflected sunset image

Hi Donama,
Sorry for the delay: Swifts Creek, Victoria, Australia --Fir0002 04:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

You've been refactored

I'm prepared to let this stand, per the right to vanish. But it is you whose comments have been refactored; I have no objection to you reverting. Its up to you. Hesperian 11:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I think I'll delete the whole comment. Donama 05:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Question

Hello Donama, good to see you're still contributing - your username was one of the first I ever saw, way-back-when :)

I was wondering, would you be able to make a map similar to commons:Image:Burnsidemap.png for the City of Unley? I had a go, and totally failed, and your Burnside one looks fantastic :)

Eagerly awaiting a response, Daniel→♦ 07:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It'll cost you 50 bucks! Just kidding. I think I could do that. To come soon... Donama 08:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Little context in Wurly

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Wurly, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Wurly is very short providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Wurly, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 09:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

tick

I notice you edited Tick (disambiguation) and Time (computing) in the assumption that one computer tick is a microsecond. I'm not aware of any computer ticking at that rate, though several Linux implementations track time at that resolution. A careful reading of Time (computing) should explain the distinction. Accordingly, I've reverted your edits. Regards, —EncMstr 02:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Hugo Kelly

An article that you have been involved in editing, Hugo Kelly, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hugo Kelly (2nd nomination). Thank you. --B. Wolterding 10:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

John Long who

Hi, this is in regards to your contributions to Wikisource from January 2006. They intrigued me enough to do some digging around, but I havent been able to work out who this "John Long" is, so I started a discussion on Wikisource:Proposed_deletions. Someone has bugged me for more details, and I have just now realised you are still active here on Wikipedia. so ... please come help us! :-) John Vandenberg 04:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi again, as this is just a single image on its own, I am going to delete it on Wikisource for the moment. However, if you are able to secure a better agreement with the copyright holder, or we can determine that it is in fact public domain, we can easily undelete it. I have looked into this further as it could be a very valuable resource, and it all comes down to which country he was a citizen of. If he was a citizen of USA, then it is public domain if he died before 1937. If he remained a citizen of the UK, it is copyright for 50 years after it is first published - if it hasnt been published yet, then it is still protected. John Vandenberg 09:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes CC licenses are the way to go. The problem is that "cc-by-nc" is not an acceptable license on Wikisource. If you can negotiate with the copyright holder to give Wikisource a "cc-by-sa" license, that would be ideal. The other option is you could ask for a "cc-by-nd" (no derivatives) license, but that is not yet approved for use on Wikisource - we will have an uphill battle trying to ask the Wikisource community to accept cc-by-nd, but I for one will support the inclusion of this diary under "cc-by-nd".

Also, we have a much stronger team on Wikisource these days to support you while you learn the ropes; I will personally guarantee to give you any assistance you need. John Vandenberg 01:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Zajdi, Zajdi Jasno Sonce

An article that you have been involved in editing, Zajdi, Zajdi Jasno Sonce, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Makedonsko Devoiche. Thank you.

WikiProject Australia newsletter

WikiProject Australia publishes a newsletter informing Australian Wikipedians of ongoing events and happenings within the community and the project. This month's newsletter has been published. If you wish to unsubscribe from these messages, or prefer to have the newsletter delivered in full to your talk page, see our subscription page. This notice delivered by BrownBot (talk), at 21:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC).

WikiProject Australia newsletter

WikiProject Australia publishes a newsletter informing Australian Wikipedians of ongoing events and happenings within the community and the project. This month's newsletter has been published. If you wish to unsubscribe from these messages, or prefer to have the newsletter delivered in full to your talk page, see our subscription page. This notice delivered by BrownBot (talk), at 21:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC).

Adelaide Wikimeetup 3

Adelaide Meetup Next: TBA Last: 6 March 2020

Hi Donama - we're planning a third meetup in Adelaide sometime in the coming weeks, and would love to have you there. If you can, please help decide a location, a date and a time here. Thanks! ~ Riana ⁂ 12:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you are listed at Wikipedia:ADEL#Participants. If you do not live in Adelaide/South Australia and cannot make it to the meetup, please accept my apologies!

Adelaide Wikimeetup 3

Adelaide Meetup Next: TBA Last: 6 March 2020

Hi Donama - after some planning we've decided to hold the third Adelaide Wikimeetup on Sunday, 17th February, 2008. The meeting will be held at Billy Baxter's in Rundle Mall at 11:30AM. Further details and directions are available on the meetup page. Please RSVP here by 20:00UTC on 15th February 2008 (that's 6AM Saturday for our time zone) so that we can inform the restaurant about numbers. Hope to see you there!

You are receiving this message because you are in Category:Wikipedians in South Australia or are listed at WP:ADEL#Participants. If this has been sent in error, please accept our apologies!

On behalf of Riana ⁂, 11:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Revised

Hi Donama - since Sunday is inconvenient for many people due to church, we are rescheduling for Saturday. I hope you will still be able to attend! Best, ~ Riana ⁂ 12:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Heya - yeah, we were trying to make a compromise between people who have Sundays free, and people who have church etc, but I guess it'll always be hard to find a date that's perfect for everyone, regardless of how much you plan ahead! Hope you can make it! ~ Riana ⁂ 01:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Reminder

Just a gentle nudge towards the meetup page, hoping you can confirm your attendance before the day is out. We'd love you to be there. :) ~ Riana ⁂ 18:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Michael McCoy

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article Michael McCoy, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 04:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikimedia Australia incorporation meeting

Hi there Donama/archivelist! As you may know, the Wikimedia Foundation has recently approved Wikimedia Australia as an official chapter. In order to acknowledge this, and to appoint an interim committee, approve our statement of purpose and our rules, and appoint a Public Officer, Wikimedia Australia will be having a meeting at Computerbank in Melbourne. For those of us who are located in other cities, we shall be holding conference calls to the main meeting. The meeting will be held at 2:30PM on Sunday, 20th April 2008, Adelaide time. In order for us to organise this meeting, we need your help! Please drop by at our meta subpage with suggestions as to venues, conference calling services, etc. It will be at 2:30 so we can meet up for lunch beforehand if anyone's open for that! Hoping to see you there! ~ Riana ⁂ 01:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC) You are receiving this message because you are an active Wikimedian in Adelaide and are on this list. If you think I've missed anyone out, please feel free to copy-paste this and send it to them too!

TfD nomination of Template:FootnotesSmall

Template:FootnotesSmall has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Rockfang (talk) 08:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Movement and church

Dear brother friend,

Both the words has its two sided definition. The Lord is moving (for example in Ezk. "the wheels"), so are HIS servants. So moving with the L-O-R-D makes/causes a "movement". The movement should be dynamic and forward. Once we were in the age of Moses, then the Gospel came; and now we are in the book of Revelation. Soon to the New Jerusalem. So there is a movement going on of God with man. This is the positive side of the term.

The negative side seems(/points to) the organizational, humanly effort of trying to achieve something; trying to do something. But then it all depends upon how we look on something and what are we? Are we the children of our Father God, living in the Spirit or are we the natural man of this world!

The same goes with the word "church" too. Any non-Christians reading the article will not see any difference; and any hater of the "church" (The Truth/The Way) will still feel the same.

But then we have two fold responsibilities today (even on Wiki): Be like the Son of God in life and our conduct and nature, and also being righteous, patience, calm, quite, silence, and "to the point" in our writing and speaking. The facts should be told unhindered and without reservations. So be calm brother friend. Look to Jesus Only!

Peace be to you brother friend, grace be multiplied:

In HIM,

Your little brother,

HopeChrist (talk) 19:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Salil. You're not making any real point I'm afraid. Wikipedia isn't about trying to keep people happy, but about trying to describe reality as closely as possibly providing as much backup evidence as possible (see WP:Cite, WP:Weasel, WP:NPOV, etc). And please don't call me brother. It's the wrong gender and also condescending. Donama (talk) 04:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Humme, .. ya, that was right, that I am not "pin-pointing" anything here. I just thought of Christian fellowship. But anyhow, well, I thought of leaving a notice that when the "article" will be reviewed by the team of editors (in near future), it won't remain the same as it is now. Also, it might not present the things as you one or few people want, see, or understands!

I took back all my gender based remarks. I apologize! The opposite of "condescending" is friendly, so I thought let your "pov" it be so. Anyways, I have nothing much valuable to say. Happy editing! (Jesus is the L-O-R-D!) Thanks, HopeChrist (talk) 06:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Donama, Please don't take any of my comments in a negative aspect. I believe in the same church as mentioned in the article Christian Conventions. I see and find believers practicing, living, and enjoying the truth both in the local churches and The Way. Also, please don't bother yourself in replying to me each time. (I assume you are an older and matured Christian than I). Thanks. HopeChrist (talk) 15:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, not older and not religious, but this has no bearing on the discussion anyway. Donama (talk) 03:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

WINGS reference on Christian Conventions

Why did you remove this reference? Just curious. Do agree with most of your edits. Slofstra (talk) 18:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Slofstra, I can't really remember, but I did make a comment in the edit summary which I can quote here: "remove wings link as it is not actually about this article (not to mention non-NPOV -- see WP:NPOV) -- arguments on talk page pls)". Is it okay by you? Donama (talk) 06:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Not really. The WINGS site is specifically about and for the members of 'Christian Conventions'. Many of the site authors have an anti- agenda but they have tried to keep this particular site ideologically neutral and focused on the issue of child sexual abuse. There have been a number of CSA incidents involving the 'Christian Conventions' clergy and also elsewhere within the group, not systemically, and probably no more than occurs in other denominations or the population in general. But with this group, the problem is compounded by the local/ decentralized nature of the membership and no formal church communication, which means that parents with young children are more vulnerable because of a lack of accurate information on the incidents that have occurred. So I personally feel the site is beneficial, informative and timely and also relevant to the article. The link and the WINGS site could very well save a child from a CSA attack which is why I think it should be there. Slofstra (talk) 18:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Slofstra, I completely see your point here, but Wikipedia isn't intended as a place to warn vulnerable people about sexual predators. Generic support/information links, yes, but this one really smacks of a non-neutral point of view, whatever one's personal views are. I think there's almost certain to be sexual abuse happening in any organisation/situation where kids are alone with adults who are blindly trusted so I certainly don't dispute that and definitely have no interest in defending any religious organisation against the charge... But it's still against WP's WP:NPOV guideline to just presume it. And I think it's unencyclopaedic too. The whole article completely lacks verifiability as it is. Btw I also agree with all you're saying about the WINGS website. It looks to be pretty dry and reasonable, no qualm there, but that still doesn't mean it's relevant. That said, I don't want to be dogmatic. Add the link back if you still feel it should go there after reading this :) Donama (talk) 08:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to focus in on the point of NPOV. I personally don't see how NPOV is broken. Many of the religion articles have a related article about sexual abuse in the particular religion. And as you know I am a member of the organization so if anything my POV is pro- Slofstra (talk) 04:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Pru Goward.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Pru Goward.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) 05:06, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Adelaide city centre rename

Hi Lisa, I've made a comment at the discussion page. I'll wait for the discussion to run its course before any move. Hope all's well, —cj | talk 13:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

P.S: It's he ;-)—cj | talk 13:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Australia newsletter,December 2008

The December 2008 issue of the WikiProject Australia newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. This message was delivered by TinucherianBot (talk) 07:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Halifax Street, Adelaide

Second opinion sought: Is Halifax Street really a "major" street? (What is a "major" street?) Your thoughts? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

There were red links to it on Adelaide city centre. Donama (talk) 06:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand your reply, and I suspect I didn't make the point of my question clearly enough.

What I meant to say was: The opening sentence of the Halifax Street article says: "Halifax Street is a major street in ... ". I wouldn't class any of the east-west streets as "major" streets (except, perhaps Wakefield/Grote). Thus, I was asking you: "I don't think Halifax Street is a "major" street; what are your thoughts on whether or not it is a "major" street?"

Your response says: "There were red links to it ... ". There haven't been any red links to Halifax street since December 2006 ...

Sorry to confuse you. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 09:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I was in a hurry and got confused. I created Carrington Street, Adelaide on the same template so I thought you might be questioning that street's notability. Frankly I don't think Halifax or Carrington streets are major streets but they are part of the original city grid planned in the early 1800s. You can see that in the schematic someone has done in Adelaide city centre#Built Environment. Completely agree to drop the word major. Donama (talk) 00:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

You're doing a good job with the street page creations. When I created the schematic, my reaction was "There's a lot of red links in that table", but I never got around to doing anything about it - thanks to your efforts, the number is steadily diminishing. And thanks to your "template", I now have little excuse to not do something.

A minor point, hopefully for your interest: There was a "debate" about the naming of Adelaide city centre, and one of the conclusions was that there was more than just the CBD in the square mile, and conversely, the CBD wasn't a good description for the square mile. Hence, you may have noticed me changing some references to CBD to [[Adelaide city centre|centre]]. If you feel strongly about it, I'm open to being convinced otherwise.

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 07:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I was aware of that naming debate, but never seemed to form a strong opinion about it. I'll try to remember to use city centre instead of CBD. Cheers Donama (talk) 00:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey! This looks really promising!! Much better than my pedestrian effort; I'm looking forward to seeing the result. And I'm really looking forward to seeing how you handle East Terrace. If you want any help, (though I can't imagine what), I'm happy to be "enlisted" - just ask! Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

(P.S. Again, hopefully for your interest: As well as Adelaide city centre#Built Environment, my "schematic" is at King William Street, Adelaide#Name changes on streets crossing King William Street too. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC))

Christian Conventions

Thanks for continuing to monitor this article. I recall in the archives a great deal of space being given to the ridiculous (to me) subject as to whether or not the word “denomination” should be applied. I wasn't around the article during those discussions, but Tmtsoj has edited the article to, seemingly, again reflect the PoV that it is somehow not a “denomination” or have a name(s). I thought that, as you seem to be the only person still about with a bit of experience with the article's history, you may have some input to offer: Discussion page. • Astynax ^talk 20:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the reality may be that it doesn't have an official name, so the current section on that sounds okay to me. As to whether it's a denomination, well I think if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck then... you get the picture, but there seems to be some resistance to this label within the group given it basically means "a class/society of individuals called by the same name/title/designation" (which brings us back to the opposition to being named). I can't really see a way to move ahead and demonstrate the reality one way or another. I guess, the least that could be done is to point new users to that old discussion section about the word 'denomination'. Donama (talk) 01:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there seems to be resistance to just about any attempt to describe them, at least from their current editor. The official names at the top of the article seem still to be in use by their Overseers (at least the stationery is still being used). And the “Christian Conventions” name itself only is used for official purposes. I'm not sure why the article was given that title, as everyone else calls them “Two by Two” or one of the other descriptive names used by people who don't know what else to call them. I can see not using "Cooneyite" (the other popular name given to them) because the followers of Cooney himself still exist as a separate fellowship. Ah well, was just hoping not to have to revisit the whole name/denomination mess. • Astynax ^talk 02:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe the person named Slofstra from back in the archives is back. I see you had some discussions with him last year. I haven't yet thought through the edits he proposes, but I would really not like the article to go back to the mess it had become due to what looked like a minor edit war. So, if he is rehashing somthing which has been gone over before, perhaps you'd recall that better than would I (since I wasn't involved in this topic at that point). There are some ironclad facts with which some members will refuse to agree, as I've learned in the interim while monitoring a couple of pro-CC discussion sites. Going back to an article which is self-contradictory and basically says nothing isn't an option, in my view. • Astynax ^talk 19:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Sloftstra has requested your input as to whether the material which he recently restored would be an improvement on the previous edits to the article. Some of the unsourced material in the restored portions could be cited, while other material included in the restored portion has since been objected to and removed by editors over the last months. I'm not averse to changes, though restoring the material makes the article a mess as it now stands. I admit to having developed some intolerance towards this editor, based upon reading through the archives. Perhaps I'm reading too much of tmtsoj's attempt to muddy the waters into his arguments, so fresh input would be welcomed by me as well. • Astynax ^talk 19:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I commented on the talk page. Donama (talk) 07:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Dear Donama: I made a nasty comment directed at you on the CC talk page. I mistook you for a different editor. I apologize for that. I hope you can forgive me. --nemonoman (talk) 20:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Donama, could you have a look at the topic 'First Paragraph' and tell us what you think? (Note - I had to change my ID) RSuser (talk) 13:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

To follow up. I think we could use more depth on wiki policies. Nemonoman is doing his best to find middle ground on this article, but someone with more depth at the policy level might be helpful. I'm trying to arrive at a consensus on what kind of sources would be admitted into the article. I'm reasonably well versed on the policies but one of the writers accuses me of wiki-lawyering. I'd rather get someone else to provide overall direction since I am in an adversary position on this. If you could just look at this one issue: Talk:Christian_Conventions#Is www.workersect.org a self-published site? RSuser (talk) 15:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Further followup. I posted to the RS/Noticeboard: WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#One_topic_publishing_house_acceptable_as_RS. That may do the trick.RSuser (talk) 16:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Views on Baptism

Hey Donama, I have nothing but anecdotal testimony to offer on the subject, but I vividly recall a discussion with Clarence Arquette (a worker) before I was baptized, about the rôle and purpose of baptism, and we specifically discussed whether or not baptism was required for people who had been baptized in other churches. His response was that, in such cases, being re-baptized is a personal decision—if the prospective baptizee felt their original baptism was valid, then they are not compelled to be re-baptized, although they are regarded as answerable for their lives since baptism (a belief that is more pertinent to the concept of "salvation" in 2x2ism). The article makes no mention of this view, and for all I really know it was Clarence's view and his alone. Have you found anything in your research that mellows or counters the apparently very stringent view of "outside" baptism, from the position posited in the article at present? Tomer^talk 06:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tomer, I haven't heard anything like that anecdotally or seen such in any research I've done. Still, that doesn't mean it isn't the case. Without published ideals/rules/standards, it's hard to get everyone to think in accord let alone behave in accord. Donama (talk) 08:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, anecdotally, in the "Ministry" section, it says that the workers cannot officiate at weddings. In Wisconsin, at the very least, workers can, as recognized spiritual leaders, legally perform marriages. They may not be "registered marriage celebrants", but be that the case, it is not because of any legal obstacle. Tomer^talk 08:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, the gatherings section says that participation is restricted to "members" for Sunday-morning meeting, and "approved members" for union meetings... what, precisely, is an "approved member"? ("Approved by whom?", comes to mind, along with "What measurement is used in said 'approval'?") Once again with the anecdotes, I have been in more than one Sunday-morning meeting or [Wednesday-night] Bible study, where an "outsider" came along with a professing friend, and gave their testimony along with everyone else. While many people are initially shocked (it's beyond mere "surprise"...the expectation is that only "professors" (my term :-p) will speak), I have never witnessed any opposition expressed during their testimony, nor after meeting. I have, instead, witnessed admiration for someone who isn't necessarily accustomed to how meeting flows, feeling comfortable enough and compelled enough, to take part. I didn't grow up in the progressive environment of the Pacific NW, I grew up in Wisconsin. I think that, while there may be a general assumption that only "insiders" (another pet term of mine :) ) will take part, the article gives an unrealistic impression that Sunday-morning meeting, while it might be boring-as-hell for many hapless people who wind up there, to others is a vibrant spiritual experience; participation by anyone, even if it's unexpected, is welcomed after the initial jarring is overcome. I think I'm up to 6¢ now... :-D Tomer^talk 09:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks and a question

Just a thanks for your input and notice, even though I know you've been busy (me also - summer is finally starting to appear in northern climes). Since you aren't embroiled in the current to-do, I thought I'd ask a quick question: I have a copy of a newspaper article from 1910 which gives the story of the CC's founding, early doctrine, etc. The copy the British Library sent is huge (original size). I was wondering if it might make a good illustration if I could get it (or at least a portion) down to a manageable width? It has long passed into the public domain, and I'm asking simply because I don't recall seeing an illustration like that on a Wikipedia article. Or would a newspaper clipping be too strange? • Astynax ^talk 21:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. Neonoman helped in resizing it and it now spans the article's Founding and Early Growth sections. He put a link in the caption to the full article, which is a rather large file. Still, it seems to be strange for an illustration, so if you think it detracts, it is OK with me to bring that up. • Astynax ^talk 02:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

For perseverance

		The Special Barnstar
		For your long-term work in editing and discussions that have kept the Christian Conventions related articles moving forward over the years! • Astynax talk 15:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention keeping them from becoming messes subject to deletion. Thanks for being watchful. • Astynax ^talk 15:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Astynax! Donama (talk) 02:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Quick question

Since the atmosphere over at CC talk is a bit soured right now, and as you've been helping implement the reviewer suggestions, I was wondering what to do about the suggestion to cite the membership numbers. As I've slowly been making my way through the clutter on my table, I've come across yet other figures. The Sydney Morning Herald in the 1980's gave an estimate of 1-4 million, though it doesn't say on what that was based. The Keith Crow thesis paper from the 1970's also put it very high. Then there is a figure in the middle that I quoted (and which I'm hoping I still have somewhere). Daniel p. 14 puts it at 450,000-700,000), and some of the websites have a similar figure or lower. Benton Johnson in Sex, Lies and Sanctity updates Keith Crow's metrics and came out with an estimate range of 48,000-190,000 (U.S.A. only). So, I'm wondering if we should just drop the membership estimate, or put a note in the 'Explanatory notes' section you created to explain that estimates vary depending on the metrics used, and cite Benton Johnson? • Astynax ^talk 21:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Astynax, was away from the Internet from July 15th and only just back today so sorry for the delay. I think the footnote you suggest sounds like a good idea. Please go ahead and we can change it based on feedback on the article talk page if needed. Cheers Donama (talk) 04:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I discovered that footnotes cannot be nested in the info boxes, or at least I couldn't get that to work. So, instead of using the short citation format as used elsewhere in the article, I went with parenthetical citations in that note. Hopefully, what I wrote makes some sense. • Astynax ^talk 09:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

LC puzzle

A long time ago (10 April 2006) on Talk:Ann Bressington you said:

In an email from the SEO, I've been told "Ind Nick Xenophon No Pokies group polled ... 8 below the line.

How can you vote for a group below the line?
(i.e. I believe that, by definition, it's impossible, so I'm fascinated at the thought that it may be possible.)
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your great reply. A real bit of South Australian history!

Whilst I was wandering around Bunnings looking for 10mm x 120mm coach bolts, it occurred to me that the answer must be something to do with that phrase in the legislation about "the voter's intentions being clear".

example: if voter wrote "Nick X 4 ever!" on the ballot paper below the line, then the voter's intentions are clear that they want to vote above the line for "Ind Nick Xenophon No Pokies" group. (Or at least, if I were one of Nick X's scrutineers, that's what I'd be saying to the SEO supervisor!)

Writing 1 to n below the line explains the 23 263 + 32 + 61 votes.

Writing 1 to x below the line, where x-is-a-number-less-than-n would be informal, because the voter's intentions for preferences x+1 to n are not clear.

(Thought: I guess that means writing 1 to n-1 is formal, because it's "clear"; though I expect if you are going to the trouble of writing 1 to n-1, you would probably put in the nth one ... )

Just writing a 1 against Nick X below the line is probably also "clear".

(Such improbable scenarios explain why there were only 8 such votes.)

Thanks for making me think. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 05:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello!!

Hi, thanks for your really pleasant message, it is very welcome!! See my posts to Orderinchaos I'm sorry I didn't confront the Aussie project first, I was a little afraid of being turned away... My goal was certainly not to override anybody's hard work or cause a major conflict. Basically I came across several Aussie city articles and I tried to add quality svg maps to them and replace the old beige dot maps!! However I simply couldn't add a map to them nor could I figure out what the documentation meant about x and y intergers or something!! So basically I saw a flaw that you could not simply add a decent map to them to try to improve understanding so I thought it might be best to merge. Not for vindictive reasons, just simply so I could try to help the project by adding svg maps to all of your templates! I made an example of the ALice Springs template as an example and I don't think it was missing any info and was OK Ithought. I'm pretty sure the same sort of thing could be done with any specialized suburns articles too, but I respect your project decision..

Given that I work on every country in the world in adding infoboxes maps and references (and have done for years under my old account, I haven't only been here 17 days LOL) etc I have become accustomed to how the standard box works. Admittedly I hated it at first, but I gradually learned that it can mostly be modified exactly to the specific requirements of that country or wikiproject. Meaning that you can remove any empty paramters into a smaller neater template and you can also change many of the paramters to read exactly what you want. e.g the Nazim and Naib Nazim for Pakistan means the Mayor and Vice Mayor. So in the government section you have the option to modify it to that country's particular requirements. I just think the TFD caused a bit of a panic and in seeing the reaction I tried to quickly end the TFD but strangely I had my own attempt to quickly end the debate (meaning keep) overurled and reported at ANI. I have to say that while the one size fits all approach may seem very generic or Americanized it isn't really given the flexibility of the template. Even the same template can differ greatly in terms of content from country to country. Unfortunately my work on the overall geography/cities project to try to add an infobox and map to every articles by country and try to get articles up to a consistant standard with a similar format and layout backfired in this circumstance but I know now you can see it was in good faith. I understand that every place is different and article text will be different but I do believe it is possible to maintain a regular pattern and consistancy with a bit of hard work.

The reason why I changed my account was because I wanted to keep a much lower profile from now on and concentrate on quality above all. Looks as if staying away from TFDs and forums would work better from now on... Anyway, I'm very glad you contacted me, that does mean something... I really wish Mattinbgn and Aussie Legend in particular could see that actually I'm not the bad person who makes masses of mistakes that they think I am and even now they continue with ill feeling towards me and at TFDs on unrelated templates. I've apologised to them, shame they can't do the same... Anyway, Best regards Donama! Himalayan 10:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

P.S the real reason I nminated the Bangladesh district template for deletion was because it is incorrect!! It currently displays districts as towns and this is wrong!! I made 64 accurate district locator maps here but such is the nature of the BD template I am currently unable to add these more accurate and better quality district locators to the template. Hence my reason for deleting to improve the quality and accuracy of them which the old bangladesh district template didn't and it would have been too fiddly to try to add new documentation to an old fashion designed template anyway from a programming perspective.. Anyway.. Himalayan 10:26, 9 September 2009 (UTC)