Pastordavid

Pastordavid (talk · contribs) I have been here about 6 months, and have just passed the 2k mark for my mainspace edits. Much of what I edit doesn't get very much "foot-traffic", so I thought it might be helpful for me to get some input from other editors. Pastordavid 21:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews

• I am impressed with both your contributions and your approach to editing. Working with you is a genuine pleasure. You are industrious, diligent, thoughtful and helpful. I hope that you will at some point consider becoming an administrator. Majoreditor 03:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• You probably already know my opinion. You have to my eyes shown a great deal of character and patience in dealing with idiot newbs (me, for instance) and dealing with topics which could easily become confrontational, like Homosexual readings of Jesus and John. And, frankly, the quality of your work as an editor is unquestioned. Maximus the Confessor and John Chrysostom, particularly the former, given the dearth of existing information, both display excellent writing and referencing. If you aren't considering becoming an admin, I sincerely hope you reconsider. Calm, reasonable, informed editors are something we can always use more of, and you are all of those. John Carter 13:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you both for your kind words. I have also enjoyed when we have been able to collaborate. As to the possibility of adminship ... well, I haven't ruled it out as a possibility. -- Pastordavid 15:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I, for one, have been glad for your presence. You have been fair, unpartisan in topics that can easily cause tensions, and unfailingly patient and courteous. You have certainly shown pastoral sensitivity. Khronia Polla! InfernoXV 15:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. While I certainly attempt to act in such ways, it is reassuring to hear that others perceive me that way as well. Xaris kai eirene soi! -- Pastordavid 15:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for the help that you have been in difficult circumstances. You have a very calm and clear headed way of dealing with issues and somehow manage to walk very narrow lines with fairness and impartiality. I appreciate the respect you have shown me and others even though we are ideologically at odds - you are one of the people who make editing here worthwhile. Sophia 20:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Our differing ideologies / perspective are what make the conversations so interesting for me -- and what I believe helps to make the encyclopedia better. I am glad that we have been able to work together to get conflicts settled (or at least come close). Thanks for the review. -- Pastordavid 20:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Every time I've worked with Pastordavid, I've found it to be a great experience. He's cool under pressure, always willing to listen to the opinions of others, and very rational and helpful. If you are considering the admin bit, please let me know, as it would be my pleasure to write the nomination. If not, keep up the good work! Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I greaty value your opinion, thank you. When the time comes I will drop you a line. -- Pastor David ^† _(Review) 16:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• It is so great to have a pastor on wikipedia. Presense of good people raises the average good-behavior and spritual degree of the wikipedia community; a community that constantly experiences incivilities, edit-warrings, and at times injustice.--Aminz 08:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hope that, as you say, I have at times been able to raise the level of civility and cooperative editing. Thanks for the review. -- Pastor David ^† _(Review) 16:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• You are certainly a blessing to Wikipedia, and your behaviour here is a shining example for all of us! Your influence on me has been tremendous, even if it has taken some time. :) Your advice is now on my user page, and will stay there until I learn it. Thank you! --Merzul 14:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your review, and I am flattered to have found a place on your userpage. I have been giving some though to your question below, and I will get to answering it soon. Pastor David ^† _(Review) 15:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I've only seen good work from you, and respect for others' opinions and WP policies. Keep up the good work. Rigadoun (talk) 20:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• View this user's edit count using Interiot's 'Wannabe Kate' Tool.

• View this user's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool

Questions

1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

   My favorite contribution is probably Maximus the Confessor. When I found the article, it was two seperate stubs, and is now a featured article. I am also proud of my contributions to John Chrysostom (currently a GA). I recently started the Lutheranism WikiProject, which seems to have gotten off the ground pretty quickly and is doing some good work.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

   I have been involved in edit conflicts from time to time, mostly due to helping out at WP:3O. I find that assuming good faith goes a long way -- if people don't think you're out to get them, they are much more willing to compromise. That, and when things get too hairy -- step away for a while.

4. Why use the title "Pastor" in your username?

   In no way, especially given events on wikipedia in the last months, do I use my title as any sort of appeal to extra authority, expertise, or influence. Rather, I think that it is important to be transparent about my own POV and the community that influences me. Given my username, it is relatively easy to look at my edits and see if I am pushing that POV, or editing in a more neutral manner.

6. When is it okay to ignore a rule?

   I think that is a hard question to answer, as it is by definition a policy that can only be applied case-by-case. My gut reaction is that if you have to explain an invocation of IAR, then you probably ought not to have applied it in that situation. That is, the application assumes (as I read it) that consensus as to what is best for the encyclopedia obviously falls in a certain direction, but the process is impeding that decision. If such a concensus about what is best for the encyclopedia is not present, the process is there to help reach one.

   That said, I am not a fan of "process for process' sake", but there are many good uses and reasons for process; most important of which (for me) is helping to determine concensus, making sure that our standards are fair, and helping to keep everyone editing in a neutral, civil manner.

   Ultimately, I think that situations requiring IAR are sort of like that famous definition of pornography - I can't define it, but I know it when I see it. Pastor David ^† _(Review) 22:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]