User talk:CapHammer

Cap, you did a great job on your very first edits. I've "Wikified" a few things, and broke up the long paragraph on the two discussions with bulleted points. After I saved it, I discovered that you have made some more edits tonight. I tried a side-by-side comparison via History but the paragraphs don't align enough for me to see what changes you made tonight. I was going to put them back in. I hope that it won't be too much trouble for you to type them in again. (Sorry!) If there are any of my edits that either you don't understand the "why" or perhaps disagree with, please add on to this note, beginning your text with a colon (:) to indent it one level. Also, please sign your text with four tildes, and Wiki will insert your Wiki name and the date/time. Thank you again for your strong interest in this article. I'm so glad to have an interested colleague who agrees with the female apostle view! Afaprof01 (talk) 04:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I saw the alterations and I think that they were great! Thanks for that, I appreciate your help. I'm a wiki noob, but I've a strong interest in women in the first century period and wanted to contribute the the page. I appreciate that you 'wikified' my edits, I have no idea how to do those sorts of things. CapHammer (talk) 02:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

You're very welcome. I'm really thankful for your interest and contributions here. Afaprof01 (talk) 01:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Cap, I've never been in something so heated. In Talk:Creation according to Genesis#List of suggested paragraphs I've written a proposal there. It's too long and hasn't won an Oscar. I'd be grateful if you'd critique it for me and give me your suggestions of ways I could improve on it and make it more acceptable. Please also be frank where you think I'm wrong.

Short form of my opinion: "Creation myth" (CM) is a general term used to refer to creation stories in many, maybe all, religions. In my opinion, 'myth' implies imagination and fantasy to most people, and that is the case as may be seen in the Wiki article Creation myth. Simply saying "Creation according to Genesis is a creation myth," while a true statement according to the formal literary genre, implies to readers unfamiliar with the CM term that Genesis (and the rest of the Bible since Jesus and many other places in both OT and NT refer to the Creation narrative) is a myth in the common use of that term, without understanding it to be a technical term in this case. That raises the hackles of readers who accept the Bible as God's Word in some fashion, and affirms the worst suspicions of doubters.

I object to putting CM in the very first sentence. I also believe it should be explained when it does appear.

I certainly understand reluctance to get involved. If you don't have the time or inclination to make suggestions to me, that's also fine. Thanks for considering it. See you at Junia sometime. ─AFAprof01 (talk) 03:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I added a suggested paragraph, perhaps I will be flamed, but that is OK. I understand your point of view. My main ideas were probably in regards to terminology such as 'Pentateuch' or 'Torah' when referring to Hebrew Scriptures. I understand that there is a page for the Hebrew Bible, but these are more correct terms. Ack, as for Myth......this is always such a contentious area! It can be really insulting to peoples beliefs to assert something about the truths of their religion. That being said, science is an important aspect in our religious dialogue. I like the idea of Myth, but perhaps redefined. I like Rene Girard's approach to Myth, that it is a Anthropological story that communicates a more profound truth.

Let me know what you think of my contribution.CapHammer (talk) 08:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi do you need any help updating the Diocese page? I created a Wikipedia account to help out. Any idea who did the earlier changes? Hard to figure put the agenda - parts seem pro-Sydney, parts anti-military and parts pro-Chislett/All Saints. Anyway, we can use this as an opportunity to showcase the Diocese's progress. Will be good to list the pro-SSM clergy to show the public support is behind this. What else can we do? I realise we have to write in a neutral way to pass the encyclopaedia's standards though but you know how to handle this. Let me know if you need a hand. Liberal Anglican (talk) 05:18, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Draft declined

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Your draft submission to Articles for creation has been reviewed but not accepted at this time.

Feedback

The reviewer, DoubleGrazing, left the following feedback:

This draft's references do not show that the person meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion for people. The draft requires multiple published secondary sources that:

• provide significant coverage: discuss the person in detail, not brief mentions or interviews lacking independent analysis;
• are reliable: from reputable outlets with editorial oversight;
• are independent: not connected to the person, such as interviews, press releases, the subject's own website, or sponsored content.

Please add references that meet all three of these criteria. If none exist, the subject is not yet suitable for Wikipedia.

Primary sources do not establish notability per WP:GNG.

Next steps

• Edit Draft:Tiffany Sparks to address the points above, making sure to publish any changes.
• When you are ready to resubmit your draft for review, click the Resubmit button.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it may be deleted.

Need help?

• For an overview of our policies and guidelines see Everything you need to know.
• You can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page.

Scam warning

• If anyone asks you for money or payment to publish, protect, or restore a Wikipedia article or draft, it is a scam. Learn about scams on Wikipedia.

DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:45, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, CapHammer! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:45, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing the draft, DoubleGrazing, and for your feedback. I appreciate your time and would like to respectfully seek some clarification on the decline, as I believe some of the sourcing may warrant a second look.

Regarding the concern that the references are primarily primary sources, I wanted to draw attention to a few points:

1. Q&A is one of Australia's most significant national television programmes, produced by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), Australia's national public broadcaster. An appearance on the Q&A panel is not a routine interview — it is a curated panel discussion on national issues, and panellists are selected for their public profile and expertise. The draft includes an ABC News article by Joel Zander covering the episode, as well as coverage in The Guardian of Sparks's comments on the programme — both of which are independent, reliable secondary sources with editorial oversight.

1. Christians Like Us was a two-episode documentary series produced by SBS, Australia's other national public broadcaster. Importantly, Sparks was one of only ten participants — the programme was specifically about her and a small group of people, not a brief mention. The draft cites a Guardian review of the series by Luke Buckmaster and an SBS Voices article, both of which are secondary sources providing analysis and coverage.

1. I would also note a consistency concern: Sparks is one of only two female Anglican bishops currently serving in Australia who do not yet have a Wikipedia article. Other female Anglican bishops in Australia are represented on Wikipedia, and the absence of an entry for Sparks appears inconsistent with existing coverage in this area.

I completely understand the importance of WP:GNG and am happy to strengthen the sourcing further if needed. However, I believe the Guardian articles and the ABC News coverage, in particular, do meet the threshold of independent, reliable secondary sources providing significant coverage. I would be grateful for any further guidance on what additional sourcing would satisfy the requirements.

Thank you again for your work as a reviewer. CapHammer (talk) 02:12, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi,

I've just addressed the notability issues on my talk page, so will just cover the other points you raised here:

Q&A is the panelists expressing their views on the topics discussed; it is not about them, it is them talking about things. That makes it a primary source, which does not contribute to a panelist's notability.

Arguably the same applies to the Christians Like Us documentary. I haven't watched it, so don't know whether it is Sparks talking about herself and/or other issues, or whether it is a documentary about Sparks. If the latter, then it could contribute towards her notability (although couldn't establish it as the sole source).

Whether or not there are articles on other members of her peer group (the so-called WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument) isn't relevant. Each subject must establish its own notability and otherwise demonstrate that it is suitable to be published.

HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:58, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you @DoubleGrazing: for your detailed response here. I have revised the draft based on the feedback from both yourself and @LPascal:, and have posted a more detailed note at your talk page. CapHammer (talk) 09:19, 16 March 2026 (UTC)