User talk:Ron Cameron

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Ron Cameron, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! --BigDT 11:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. --BigDT 11:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Hi Ron, welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed your recently added a new book by Dr Manley to the Baptist Union of Australia article. Thanks for that--he taught me at Whitley and I was not aware of his new book, so I was very interested in that info. You might like to take a look at the Wiki project for Christianity and Project Bible. Cheers, Sarah 11:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ex-pastors

Hello, Ron. I noticed your offer to Wikify and cleanup the Ex-pastors article. I don't know if you had seen that it was nominated in Articles for Deletion. I've decided to make a Sandbox of the article as it currently stands, so that if the AfD consensus is Delete, the article may still be edited and (possibly) brought back in some form. Just wondering if you were planning to edit it swiftly, or if I should go ahead with that. Blessings, LaughingVulcan ^{Laugh With Me /} ^{Logical Entries} 01:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re Ex-pastors

Hi Laughing Vulcan... First, thanks for your 'blessings'. This is an important subject and I'd like to have a go at editing it. I've been away, and have time in the next couple of days. Where can I find it? Thanks. Ron Cameron 04:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it took me a while to find it. Laughing Vulcan, did you not think that creating a link might be a good idea?

Ron, the article is in User:LaughingVulcan/sandbox/exp. Please work on it there. Reposting the unmodified text at Ex-pastors after a clear AfD decision was the sort of indiscipline that gets you a bad name. Also, please remember always to sign talk page comments with ~~~~. When you think the draft is of encyclopedic quality, do not move it yourself but ask the Vulcan, Mattinbgn or similar to approve it and move it into the (Main) namespace - probably onto a better title such as Burnout in church leaders. -- RHaworth 05:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'll work on it there. Re the title: not all ex-pastors suffer from Burnout. There are multiple causes for pastors leaving parish ministry. I'd keep the title suggested by the original poster (which is the norm in the literature). Ron Cameron 06:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've left this on Laughing Vulcan's talk page... what do you think?

Hi Laughing Vulcan. I've done a fairly drastic edit of this article to eliminate redundancies and 'wikify' it. I would keep the original title, as it's the normal wording in the literature. I've not touched the bibliography, which is quite excellent.

This whole area is important for churches around the world. Hopefully others will modify/add to the basic article to universalize it.

Can it now become an article, or does something else need to be done?

Ron Cameron 07:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is still something of an essay but it is worth trying it. Before you move it to (Main):

Action the {{linkless}} and {{uncat}} aspects of the article. I agree that 'burnout' is too specific, but try and think of a more encyclopedic-sounding title.
Leave a note at user talk:LaughingVulcan and wait for a response.

Best of luck. -- RHaworth 11:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re Ex-Pastors

Wow! I'm impressed! :) I've been on other edits (ranging from userspace to templates to other articles to other AfDs,) since moving it over to my user space. And, coupled that I apparently hadn't put the AfD on my watchlist (*embarrassed*) caused me to miss the end of the AfD. You're also right, that I never did properly userfy or link it. I'm just glad I pulled it ahead of time to my userspace, as the original author hasn't responded despite a note on his User Talk. Thanks for some really dynamic work on the article!

The only remaining thing I'd look at, beyond RHaworth's points about the linkless and uncategorized nature, at the moment is the bibliography. It's extensive, and perhaps overly so for what now amounts to just-beyond-a-stub. OTOH, a good biblio gives people a great starting point to jump past WP into heavier research, if interested. I'm going to do the following steps this evening:

Look for places to categorize and linkify.
Add a temporary double-box to the Biblio entries you cited, to spot the Biblio entries not hit by your edits. Perhaps we should collectively look at them for a keep-or-lose basis. (Or, if you think they all should/need to be kept, let me know on the Sandbox's Talk page.)

I also agree with RHaworth that it wouldn't be a bad idea to get Mattinbgn's or another user's input on the edit before we main space it, and that it might need a better title. But don't let me let that diminish my admiration for a really good edit on it. - I'm fairly certain you have more experience with the subject than I. LaughingVulcan ^{Laugh With Me /} ^{Logical Entries} 00:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added - I've added these comments to the talk page Article sandbox user talk. LaughingVulcan ^{Laugh With Me /} ^{Logical Entries} 04:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re Ex-pastors

Thanks for your good work, and prompt responses. (I presume you have a day job, unlike myself! :-)!

One note: trust me: you won't get a better title than 'Ex-pastors'. If they're Anglican, for example, they're *not* 'ex-clergy' - they're priests-for-life, unless they're very mad or bad. So an Anglican priest can be an 'ex-pastor' but not 'ex-clergy'. Similar with other denominations. A pastor can leave parish ministry, but most ex-pastors keep their clergy credentials (eg. licence to marry) - even if they're driving a truck, for example.

HTH

Ron Cameron 23:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Got it in one. In fact, the reason I'm so passionate about the subject and was about the AfD is that I'm an ex-Pastor myself. Getting past my own passion, I think we've got an article now instead on an essay.

And your points are well taken. In Roman Catholocism, also, it's priest-for-life, except in the relatively rare case that the priest's faculties are removed (which, as I understand it, is essentially an annulment of ordination.) In some Lutheran denoms, it's an odd mix of being removed from the Roster of Clergy, loss of license to officiate Lutheran sacraments and weddings, removal of "Rev." title as far as the denomination is concerned, and yet one is still ordained-for-life. Still other denominations, loss of 'job' is virtually equivalent to excommunication in the old sense. It would be nice to be able to expand the article to cover the gamut of them, but that would have to be a long-term ongoing edit, beyond the timeframe of what we're looking at.

Anyway, I'll finish out the tasks of wikifying the citations and then repost it. I may add a bit about United States organizations that exist for support of ex-clergy. It may take me a week or so, or I may get it done over this weekend,

Thanks again for the help! LaughingVulcan ^{Laugh w/ Me} ^{or Logical Entries} 15:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ron. I think we're ready to move it back. I wanted to work on it some more to flesh it out a bit and add expand out with some Alban Institute stuff, but I don't think I'll get to that for awhile. I'm also going to add something to the mainspace talk page about the prior deletion and rewriting - hopefully it will be enough to make it better. I'm also going to {stub} it, as I really think it needs some more expansion at a future point in time.

I'm still a little worried about it going back to AfD, but I'm going to move it back to mainspace, and then "re-userfy" a copy temporarily (should it be re-deleted.) I also decided to not notify any of the prior people in the AfD to peer-review it, as I think it's changed enough to not be [WP:CSD|speedy deleted as G4.] I'm sure there are others (like me) who leave deleted articles on their watchlist, to monitor that they don't come back as a straight C/P.

Okay, I'm off to move it back to mainspace. LaughingVulcan 00:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Moved, and the talk page was merged. Ex-pastors :)

Thanks for all your good work. I know about the Alban Institute (attended one of their courses, read several of their publications) and may be able to add a few resources/insights from them in a week or two.

Ron Cameron 10:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of the largest churches in Australia - your note?

On List of the largest churches in Australia you wrote 'This list also does not include several Roman Catholic churches (eg. St. Francis' Church in downtown Melbourne which sees several thousand attending over 50 masses and other services each week)'. The list is intended to be comprehensive; if you have any references of churches that are 2,000+, please include them in the table? I'm going to remove your comment and add it to the page's discussion area, in the hopes that this and others may be added! Thanks Natebailey (talk) 15:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dawn Rowan - youtube links

Hi Ron. I've been looking at the Dawn Rowan article, and I see you have inserted two links to youtube, which each carries a copy of a Today Tonight story. If you look at the Wikipedia policy on WP:External links, you will see that we shouldn't link to copyright violations (and Youtube is even mentioned specifically). So... do you know the copyright status of the Youtube links you added? Peter Ballard (talk) 11:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]