User talk:Drostie

Here are some tips to help you get started:

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)

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)

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:

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.
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.
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.
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)

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

RE

Replied on my talk page to keep the conversation in one place. See you there,

xC | ☎ 14:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied again on my talk page to keep the whole convo in one place. My apologies for replying so late, commitments in real life have kept me away from Wikipedia for quite a while.

xC | ☎ 13:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Eastern Orthodox view of sin

I have nominated Eastern Orthodox view of sin, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eastern Orthodox view of sin. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Mrhsj (talk) 01:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TV Episodes

Hello Chris -- I saw you started an essay on TV episodes. I wondered if you were still active and wanted to continue the discussion. Rhadow (talk) 11:52, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]