User talk:DJKinsella

March 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not add promotional material to articles or other Wikipedia pages, as you did to G. K. Chesterton. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Old Moonraker (talk) 08:28, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I did not use anything as a soap box. And I only added a citation to a piece that was already there. I did not add the piece about Ignatius Press.CrossReach (talk) 07:16, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you were responding to a {{cn}} request about the re-release of the works, which is commendable. Looking again at the edit history, I see that it was the poster of that piece of information who was soapboxing; it was unfortunate that the link you added, to the bookseller's website, was so blatantly (Donate to Ignatius Press and buy our books!) spammy. Thanks for the clarification.

And, importantly, please don't let grumpy editors get you down; stick with us! --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:59, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

August 2015

Using "CrossReach Publications" books as sources

Hello, CrossReach. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, please:

avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your circle, your organization, its competitors, projects or products;
instead propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you.--McGeddon (talk) 16:08, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

H. A. Ironside

I'm not interested in giving you a hard time, CrossReach, so I thought I'd copy here what I wrote in reply on my own talk page a few days ago. (Generally, folks answer stuff on their own talk pages, but I thought you might not know this.)

Let me suggest that you keep all such information out of the lead, source with citations information you want to add to the article (Who called Ironside the pope of fundamentalism?), and put any list of Ironside's famous contemporaries in the notes. All the best, John Foxe (talk) 18:11, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those 3 people were all Fundamentalist Evangelical preachers with whom Ironside shared a great deal. Of course he was contemporaneous with a billion people but they have a special significance and interest to people interested in the life of H. A. Ironside. Torrey used to pastor the very same church Ironside pastored. Gipsy Smith spoke at Moody on at least 3 occasions. And Morgan was called the Prince of Expositors. Harry was the called the Archbishop of Fundamentalism. Both are considered two of the greatest Fundamentalist preachers of the first half of the 20th century.CrossReach (talk) 11:53, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think I could make just as good a case for Charles E. Fuller, James M. Gray, Billy Sunday, and Paul Rader. In any case, a bunch of names are out of place in an article's lead.--John Foxe (talk) 18:19, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably right. I also hadn't seen your reply. Is this the right place to make a response? I'm a bit of novice with the whole Wikipedia thing and I just add stuff as I go along with my own unrelated research into various authors. My intention for doing so is just to try and share the information that I have found and that may be of some use to others. I had seen another article on another famous religious leader that had mentioned who he was contemporaneous with, so I thought it was the thing to do. Sorry about that. All the best.CrossReach (talk) 18:31, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly I just came across F. B. Meyer's page. In the article's lead he is described, without proper citation, as the Archibishop of the Free Churches. https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/F._B._Meyer CrossReach (talk) 20:47, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Normally, I expect folks to answer on their own talk page, and obviously I did check back.

Wikipedia articles come in all qualities from absolutely embarrassing to Britannica quality. (I'm not embarrassed to say that I think some biographies I've contributed to are the best in existence, including print sources, e.g. Frank Sandford). So, regardless of what's out there, it's best to follow WP rules as much as possible and cite sources.--John Foxe (talk) 21:30, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Very well written, and someone I did not know about. He was connected earlier on with not only A. B. Simpson, but E. W. Kenyon and R. A. Torrey. But they all broke cords with him after they detected he was steering well off the Evangelical course. I found this information in Joe McIntyre's book on Kenyon which I have been planning on buying for some time. https://books.google.ie/books?id=1G-6MrfFM6YC&lpg=PA98&ots=eRar_Ye7ps&dq=Frank%20Sandford%20writings&pg=PA98#v=onepage&q=Frank%20Sandford%20writings&f=false CrossReach (talk) 11:14, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 2017

I've deleted the article you created on Daniel Steele because it appeared to be largely a copyright violation of this blog. Do not copy and paste content from elsewhere into Wikipedia. Doing so repeatedly will lead to you being blocked from editing.

Additionally, your username does not appear to comply with our policy on names because it represents an organisation. Usernames must represent an individual person. Please choose a new username that complies with our policy and request renaming by filling out the form at Special:GlobalRenameRequest. Failure to do so will likely also lead to you being blocked from editing. GoldenRing (talk) 13:47, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New categories

Hi, I deleted a category that you had tagged as WP:G7, and then moved some of your other new categories to lowercase. I don't normally do this out-of-process, but it seemed appropriate to me to WP:Ignore all rules in these simple cases. I hope you have no objection. – Fayenatic London 20:51, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, that's great. I had actually realised I had made a mistake. Made a new category, but didn't know how to delete the old one. So I was hoping a more experienced user would find it and rectify the situation. (DJKinsella (talk) 10:09, 7 September 2018 (UTC))[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, DJKinsella. 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)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, DJKinsella. 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)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:26, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Critics of Christadelphianism

A tag has been placed on Category:Critics of Christadelphianism requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "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 deleted 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:50, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Critics of Swedenborgianism

A tag has been placed on Category:Critics of Swedenborgianism requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "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 deleted 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:51, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Critics of Unitarianism

A tag has been placed on Category:Critics of Unitarianism requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "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 deleted 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:52, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:19th-century British skeptics has been nominated for merging to Category:British sceptics

Category:19th-century British skeptics has been nominated for merging to Category:British sceptics. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Place Clichy (talk) 08:59, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

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) 01:13, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:19th-century Austrian Presbyterians has been nominated for splitting

Category:19th-century Austrian Presbyterians has been nominated for splitting. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 21:20, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:19th-century Scottish Presbyterians has been nominated for merging

Category:19th-century Scottish Presbyterians has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 21:28, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:19th-century Austrian biblical scholars has been nominated for splitting

Category:19th-century Austrian biblical scholars has been nominated for splitting. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 21:45, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:19th-century British biblical scholars has been nominated for splitting

Category:19th-century British biblical scholars has been nominated for splitting. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 21:45, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]