User talk:Ttalbot

Welcome (2)

I thought I'd add my welcome too. Your edits have been very good. However, I'll just mention a couple of things.

• Because articles are supposed to be done by user collaboration, you don't sign articles. Signing should be kept for discussion on talk pages.
• Links that don't match the wording you want can be done this way: [[Creation Research (organisation)|Creation Research]] where the part before the "|" is the article name and the part after the "|" is the text that appears in the document.

Also, do you really think there is a need for an article on CSF? That is, I think that one on Creation Ministries International (which already exists) is sufficient; I can't see the need for another on the same organisation under its old name.
Philip J. Rayment 12:34, 17 April 2006 (GMT)

Reply

Hi Philip. Thank you very much for the tips. My free weekend is almost finished so I may not get a chance to do much more on CreationWiki for a while. Just when I'm starting to get the hang of it! Re CSF. Yes, I think it would be good to have a record of this. John Mackay in particular has never had anything to do with Answers in Genesis, and Creation Ministries International is long removed from his time with the organization, so it seemed incongruous to have him linked with it in any way. I won't push it if you want to remove it, but feel it is a record that none of the newcomers to creation will know about if it's not recorded. I was involved with CSF at the time, but do what you think is best. Cheers. Tim

It's not just up to me, but if I put it on CreationWiki:Recommend deletion then others can offer their views also. I will accept whatever others decide.

I'm afraid that I don't recall your name at all; what was your involvement with CSF?

Philip J. Rayment 13:18, 17 April 2006 (GMT)

1. OK, thanks.

2. Involvement was not long enough to meet you.

3. Sorry about my formatting problems, and thank you for fixing them. I should have digested all the instructions. -- Tim

Recommend for deletion discussion

Tim,

The following points are not directly concerned with the merits or otherwise of keeping the CSF article, so I'm responding to you here instead of on the Recommend deletion page.

Even more important is this: I believe that deleting the item would show that CreationWiki's rules for deleting articles are arbitrary and untrustworthy. This may reduce even further the eagerness of good creationist authors and editors to become involved with CreationWiki. It certainly put a cap on my eagerness...
This is the same risk that authors of Wikipedia run (and I've had an article there that I didn't start but contributed to considerably, deleted), and even on CreationWiki (or any other wiki) you run the risk that your input will be edited anything from fixing typos to replacing large portions. That's the nature of a wiki. However, it is not "arbitrary and untrustworthy", but considered and democratic.

...when I found that one of my well-meaning articles about a part of creation history suddenly appeared on a "name and shame" page even though it did not breach a single deletion criterion.
The page is not intended—and I certainly did not intend—to shame you at all. The quality of your input has been excellent, and the CSF article is no exception. I proposed it for deletion solely on the grounds of duplication (i.e. a second article on the same organisation). I'll admit here that I recently wrote an article that I subsequently found out overlapped two other articles that I had been unaware of or forgotten about. It's not the same situation as here, and I'm not sure what to do about it, but it is quite possible that someone might propose that it be deleted. I would not really object to that, although at the moment I don't see a clean way of retaining the information in it.

It would be respectful to new contributors to let them know you have a "name and shame" page like this one that they may appear on at any time whether they breach the guidelines or not. I didn't realize it existed.
In an ideal world, yes, but new contributors already have a hard enough time coming to grips with the learning curve. (And it's easier here than at Wikipedia, where there are endless "guidelines" on how to do things, some so complex that they come close to contradicting themselves.) Wikipedia actually has a section on its welcome page telling users that they should not be discouraged if they run into conflicts! Perhaps we need something like that here.

A private email would be much less threatening and more thoughtful unless the article really does breach the deletion criteria badly.
I'm sorry I came over as threatening. You will recall that I first raised the issue with you on your talk page (not private, admittedly) in a way that was uncritical, I believe. As I have quoted above, you replied that you would not object to its removal. This made be feel easier about proposing it for deletion here.

I'm sure to you it's not important how the contributor feels (otherwise you would have acted differently). But to me the way this was done shows a bit of a mean spirit in you Philip, and lack of consideration towards a well-meaning new contributor. -- Tim
Again, I'm sorry I gave you that impression. It is important to me how you feel. And I hate to think that CreationWiki would lose a good contributor over this. But apart from making the first approach via e-mail, how else should I have gone about proposing to the other contributors that it be deleted?

Philip J. Rayment 15:59, 19 April 2006 (GMT)

OK, sorry about the tone of my remarks. I'd had a stressful day. Shouldn't have taken it out on you. I'm calmer now, and understand the position. Thnak you for the reply. -- Tim --Klang 13:47, 24 April 2006 (GMT)

welcome aboard

Glad to have you around:). In the future, if you want to rename a page, you can click on the "Move" tab at the top of the page when the article is open, and follow the instructions from there, to "move" the article to a new title. Be careful tho -- once you move an article, it's a real pain to get it moved back to the original title -- only an admin can do it. Welcome again! Ungtss 16:37, 29 April 2006 (GMT)

Greatly appreciated. I'll think carefully about using the Move tab. Don't want to cause problems. -- Tim