User talk:Dikkat

——————————————— MY TALK PAGE ———————————————

WP:CVU status

The Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit project is under consideration to be moved to {{inactive}} and/or {{historical}} status. Another proposal is to delete or redirect the project. You have been identified as a project member and your input as to this matter would be welcomed at WT:CVU#Inactive.3F and at the deletion debate. Thank you! Delivered on behalf of xaosflux 15:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of International Order of Gnostic Templars

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article International Order of Gnostic Templars, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

The only sources given are probably publications of the sect itself.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Stijndon (talk) 14:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, don't take offense at the proposed deletion! It looks like you're working on it, and when you feel like you've significantly improved it, just remove the template and explain on the talk page why you've removed it. It will not get deleted automatically, it will always be reviewed by an admin. When they see you've improved it, they won't delete it anyways. Keep up the good work, and happy editing 82.174.120.138 (talk) 18:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't logged in... Stijndon (talk) 18:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Scott Rennie

In the interests of avoiding an extended argument over practising homosexual vs. openly gay, I have attempted to compromise with openly homosexual. My opinion is that practising could be viewed as pejorative or biased, whereas openly is more appropriate in this case as it indicates that Rev. Rennie has been open with the congregation at Queen's Cross about his homosexuality. Furthermore, we do not know for a fact that he was the first 'practising' homosexual to be called as a Minister, as it is perfectly possible Ministers have been called who have been secretly 'practising' homosexuals. I hope this compromise will be acceptable. Johnhousefriday (talk) 17:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Openly gay was too euphemistic but openly clarified by closeted (though that article itself is far from perfect) and, of course homosexual may be sufficiently factual for Wikipedia. I would not speculate how on the nature of practise involved!--Dikkat (talk) 21:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)