User talk:TrueSteelite
Welcome to Wikipedia![edit]
|
Robert Lusk[edit]
As you may have suspected, I've found the article you wrote on Robert Lusk. I'm quite familiar with the man: I visited the Walnut Ridge cemetery and church site a few weeks ago (you may be interested in seeing the pictures I took there, including one of Lusk's grave), and I grew up a few miles from the Miami RPNA congregation in Northwood, Ohio, where John Peoples was the minister. Unfortunately, I don't believe that Lusk passes our standards for inclusion for biographies, so I've had to nominate the article for deletion. If you believe that you have good reasons to say that he satisfies our inclusion criteria, please say so at the deletion discussion page and provide an explanation why you believe he satisfies those criteria. As an RPCNA member, I'm quite interested in seeing people like Lusk covered in Wikipedia; if you can prove that he passes our criteria, I'll be happy to see the article remain. Nyttend (talk) 02:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- And by the way, you've made a slight error in his article: Walnut Ridge, Indiana is about a small community in Jennings County, fifty miles northeast of the place in Washington County where the church was. You can find its location at 38°41′53″N 86°8′53″W / 38.69806°N 86.14806°W. Nyttend (talk) 02:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for your response at the deletion discussion page. I'm interested in what you say about the early minutes of Synod — do you have access to any of the minutes of meetings from 1836 or earlier? Almost all minutes from 1838 and later are online at http://www.rparchives.org (beware their absurdly long download times; you may want to start a download just before you go to bed), but I've never seen older copies online: I have digital copies of them, but only because I found and copied a transcription of them that Glasgow made in the 1890s after he'd jumped to the UPCNA. Nyttend (talk) 03:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- At the discussion, you asked me for your sources: I'll not post that there, since they're really not relevant there, but here you go. First, I have copies of all Minutes of Synod (both in PDF and Microsoft Word formats) from 1836 and earlier, including 1833 — if you want them, I'll be happy to email them to you. To do this, I'll have to have your email address; you can go to my userpage and click the "Email this user" link on the left side, and if you choose to send me an email, I'll have your address and will thus be able to email them to you. Aside from those sources, I have images of the Lakes and Illinois Presbytery minutes of 1840 (I can't remember what time of year he left; they begin in June and September respectively), plus Conococheague session minutes from 1816 to 1839 and Conococheague General Meeting minutes from 1791 to 1803. All of these images that I mention I obtained while working at the RPCNA's archives (housed at the Reformed Presbyterian Theological Seminary in Pittsburgh), but as I obtained them in the course of work, my supervisors prohibited me from making copies without permission. If you'd like copies, you can contact them at the address given at rparchives.org, but please be aware that these are large documents that might not be able to be emailed easily. Finally, please be aware that your comments at the deletion discussion aren't going to be understood by many people: these deletion discussions are open to all Wikipedia users, many of whom aren't Christians, and almost none of whom have ever heard of the Reformed Presbyterian Church. I don't know of anyone besides myself in the RPCNA who's active here at Wikipedia. Nyttend (talk) 04:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for your response at the deletion discussion page. I'm interested in what you say about the early minutes of Synod — do you have access to any of the minutes of meetings from 1836 or earlier? Almost all minutes from 1838 and later are online at http://www.rparchives.org (beware their absurdly long download times; you may want to start a download just before you go to bed), but I've never seen older copies online: I have digital copies of them, but only because I found and copied a transcription of them that Glasgow made in the 1890s after he'd jumped to the UPCNA. Nyttend (talk) 03:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I have a lot of the earlier minutes. I am missing a few prior to 1838, but I have acquired most. I have the minutes from 1825 with Lusk's censure, etc. I also have Steele's accounts and other accounts that he published in the Contending Witness (I have David Steele's set of the magazine). I was hoping to begin to piece together in this article some of this background as I have time. I had hoped floating the information out there would get some attention. I am trying to track down some things I know are available and fill in. You do realize there was a similar pattern followed earlier with regard to James Douglas?TrueSteelite (talk) 04:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- I must admit that don't understand your reference to Douglas. Do you mean the one in Glasgow? If so, I don't see the similarity, and if not, I don't know who you're discussing. Nyttend (talk) 04:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I mean that Douglas. Of course, Glasgow glosses over much. (One of the copies I have of Glasgow belonged to J.G. Vos and has his notes on the page next to Glasgow's bland comments on 1840). Douglas' Second Statement chronicles certain behaviors that ran him afoul of James R. Willson. Did you get my email?TrueSteelite (talk) 04:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'm still confused: Glasgow says nothing about Douglas in 1840. I know nothing of him other than what Glasgow says, and it's been ages since I thought of him — when you mentioned his name, my first thought was the guy in Scotland who left the RPCS when they removed Auchinsaugh from the Terms of Communion. And yes, email's been received; I've replied. Nyttend (talk) 04:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
James Douglas wrote "Strictures on Occasional Hearing", he ended up having a falling out with Willson and company because he was in Alexander McLeod's congregation in NYC. McLeod was already heading down the "New light" path, Douglas complained and was booted as a troublemaker. Same thing with Lusk. Lusk was pushed out by those who would be "New Lights." He was resisting the defection and was framed. The person you have in mind is James Reid, who wrote Memoirs of the Westminster Divines.TrueSteelite (talk) 04:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
March 2011[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from Robert Lusk (minister). When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 03:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Welcome[edit]
Hello, I noticed the AfD debate about Robert Lusk, and just wanted to encourage you to hang in there and keep writing for Wikipedia. I have no knowledge of Lusk or his religious milieu, but think you made a very good start with your article. On Wikipedia, great importance is placed on the quality of reliable sources. Instead of being links within the article itself, they should be spelled out in detail in a separate "References" section at the end of an article. Readers don't want to have to download a lengthy PDF just to learn the title, author or publisher of a source. They want to see it in a footnote. My recommendation to you, at least for your next few articles, is to pick topics where you have at least two or three good solid sources, so no one will propose deletion on notability grounds. Then, you can learn the ropes without worrying about your work being deleted, and will gain confidence going forward. I hope these hints are useful, and I hope you add your unique knowledge to the encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 05:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- On this note, I'd suggest that you write something about S.B. Wylie. Some time back, I found a bunch of what Wikipedia calls reliable sources about him (sorry, but it's been long enough that I don't remember what they were), so I know that he passes our inclusion criteria. As a grad student, I'm quite busy, so I can't guarantee any help, but I'd be interested in trying to help. Nyttend (talk) 05:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- By the way, you write that S.B. Wylie was appointed to declare the Walnut Ridge pulpit vacant: it's actually Samuel Wylie (pages 739-740 in Glasgow) of southern Illinois. Key to me to identifying which Wylie was the fact that the minutes note that he was supposed to preach there on his way home, which obviously wouldn't be correct for S.B. Wylie. Nyttend (talk) 12:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
The references look much better now. The only problem I see is listing the page numbers within the body of the article. They should be in the footnotes, and there are are variety of ways to handle that, most of them awkward. I think you are 90% of the way there in terms of formatting your references. Next, you may want to break the article into four or five sections corresponding to time periods or themes in Lusk's life. Just putting two equal signs before the section title, and two after the title will create the section and make it bold. Once you have a couple of sections created, a table of contents will be created automatically. Good luck!Cullen328 (talk) 15:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Your Username[edit]
Hello, I suggest that you review WP:GROUPNAME and consider possibly changing your username. Other users, especially those who know what "Steelite" means, may conclude that you are participating on Wikipedia primarily to promote your religious ideas, rather than to build an encyclopedia. Based on your initial contribution and responsiveness to other editor's concerns, I do not necessarily believe that to be the case. However, others may respond to your username differently, making collaboration more difficult. This is just a friendly suggestion for your consideration as a new editor.Cullen328 (talk) 15:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Lead paragraph[edit]
I recommend that you write a new lead paragraph that summarizes Lusk's life and in particular, states why he is notable. Please see WP:LEAD for the underlying rationale. Most of the content in the current first paragraph could then become the second paragraph, or the first paragraph of a section called "Family background" or similar.
The general principle is that the lead paragraph should summarize the whole article and assert notability. Hope this helps. Cullen328 (talk) 07:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I was just beginning to rework that. Thanks again for your help in cleaning up the article.TrueSteelite (talk) 07:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- You are welcome. Good start, but I am concerned about the words "increasing decline" in the lead. That wording seems to take sides in the doctrinal disputes of that era. We all have our points of view, and you are entitled to yours. However, when writing for Wikipedia, we are obligated to write to reflect the neutral point of view. Read the essay on words to avoid. You can quote Lusk or Steele on these matters, but you should also quote their opponents in the same fashion, so that readers can understand the disputes better. You can't draw conclusions yourself, but instead cite conclusions from the reliable sources. Hope this helps. Cullen328 (talk) 20:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Cullen would you please take a look at the citation? I think I actually toned down the reference. Let me know.TrueSteelite (talk) 20:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- It looks better to me, because a possibly controversial conclusion is ascribed to a historian. Cullen328 (talk) 22:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Sections[edit]
Good work on the sections. It makes the article more manageable for those new to the subject matter. Cullen328 (talk) 07:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Phone call[edit]
Sorry about the abrupt end to the phone call — I was heading eastward into Loogootee, Indiana, which sits on the western edge of the very hilly and very sparsely populated Hoosier National Forest. My phone has a very poor quality history-tracking system, and I'd not paid attention to your phone number, so I couldn't remember it or look it up to call you back once I got back into areas where there's decent coverage. Nyttend (talk) 02:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
James McKinney (minister)[edit]
Can you explain what's going on with your article James McKinney (minister)? After the first sentence or so, it's suddenly about somebody named Gibson instead. — Paul A (talk) 01:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of James McKinney (minister)[edit]
A tag has been placed on James McKinney (minister) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to an article talk page, image description page, image talk page, mediawiki page, mediawiki talk page, category talk page, portal talk page, template talk page, help talk, user page, or user talk page from the article space.
If you think that your page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. DASHBot (talk) 18:17, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
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) 16:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]
Hello, TrueSteelite. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]
Hello, TrueSteelite. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]
Hello, TrueSteelite. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
I was wondering if you are planning to finish User:TrueSteelite/James R. Willson (minister). I ask because I recently published Samuel Whelpley, who is referenced in your draft. I would imagine that you might also have some resources for the expansion of Whelpley's article. Cheers! BD2412 T 18:02, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I am planning to finish. I lost the link to the sandbox page somehow and forgot a bit about this. I will look at it more next week and start to advance the narrative. When I started, I was having some conflicts with an editor who was adding grief to my life I did not want. I have an extensive library and try to check and document all statements (as you can see). Thanks.
- Excellent. I would counsel, however, that if you look at the typical Wikipedia biography even of a famous and highly notable religious leaders (e.g. Billy Graham) are not so extensive and detailed as this. Perhaps there are elements of Willson's views that could be added to other relevant articles rather than necessarily being in this one. BD2412 T 02:49, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message[edit]
| Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message[edit]
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:12, 29 November 2022 (UTC)