User talk:Drostie

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia!

Here are some tips to help you get started:

• If you haven't already, please add your name to the new user log to let others know a little about yourself.
• Read the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the Sandbox.
• Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
• If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk or ask me on my talk page.
• To sign your name on a talk page, please finish your comments with ~~~~ (four tildes). The wiki will insert a link to your userpage and the timestamp.
• Not every subject needs its own page. Sometimes it is wiser to deal with certain subjects together on one page. See Wikipedia:Merge and Wikipedia:Redirect for some background. You may want to review Avoiding common mistakes to get started quickly.
• Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck! JFW | T@lk 17:16, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 hey there to Ithaca 2 Red Sea (of links) 3 verses 4 You're welcome! 5 David DeAngelo AfD

[edit] hey there to Ithaca

Hi Drostie,

Just wanted to say thanks for backing me up over on Talk:Christian views of homosexuality and to say give my regards to Cornell. I was a grad student there from '92 to '97 and got my Ph.D. in linguistics. --Angr 09:14, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Red Sea (of links)

I posted this to Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance, and I'm reposting here for your reference and discussion purposes:

Your questions:

• First off, should the Bible verses query that started all this be relayed to Arbitration? Does the issue of explicating an entire work needs a binding solution from them?
• Secondly, does Wikipedia advocate making broken links in the hope someone will create the pages they're referring to?
• Third, am I right in thinking it better to have a broken link over a fixed link?
• Fourth, should this be relayed to Mediation and/or Arbitration? Which should it go to?

My opinions:

1. No, I don't think so. I don't think ArbCom would be appropriate on this issue, at least not the way it is currently going.
2. Actually, generally yes. But this smells like a slightly extreme case of redlinking. Frankly, I would be inclined to wait and see if a WikiProject for bible verse is created and actively contributed to, and it very well may, and which leads to more thorough population of bible verse articles, decimating the red sea of links. (heh, heh.) Now on the other hand, Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(links) suggests that if more than 10% of the links on a page are dead, it would be generally considered "overlinked". That page looks like 1/3 of links are red.
3. You mean that the other way around, don't you? Either way, I'm not sure how to answer that question; I don't think there is a clear consensus. Certainly links with content are better than dead links. And the general convention seems to have been that you link to the most fitting existing article on a topic, and then once a more detailed page exists, someone will update the link to the more detailed article. This happens all the time.
4. I doubt it. One avenue may be to encourage SimonP and those who voted Keep in the VfD (as a group via the VFD page or Talk:John 20:16 talk page, not via a mass commenting on all their user pages) to form or contribute to a Wikipedia:WikiProjects on bible verses and start filling them in. I left one comment partially to this effect on Talk:John 20:16 myself.

- Keith D. Tyler [flame] 22:53, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] verses

Hiya,

you recently voted to delete John 20:16

Uncle G has made a wider proposal covering a much larger group of verses.

would you be prepared to make a similar vote at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Individual Bible verses, which covers the full list of verses in Uncle G's suggestion?

~~~~ 9 July 2005 16:44 (UTC) 23w

[edit] You're welcome!

...don't know why reverting vandalism is fun, but it is. Keep up the good work! Antandrus (talk) 05:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] David DeAngelo AfD

Hi there, I've given stuck in a weak delete vote on this one. The article looks primarily like spam nonsense to me, but there do seem to be a few non-trivial third-party sources which could confer some minor notability on this clown sufficient to survive an AfD... DWaterson 14:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)