Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

Thanks for the headsup. Can you point me to the relevant policy? Thanks, DavidOaks (talk) 18:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would the lead paragraph from Separation of church and state be useful to add to the article on state atheism? It does seem to be cited and denotes a difference. Alastairward (talk) 21:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I've complained about synthesis in other articles enough to have probably known better. Thanks for taking the time to talk about it though. Alastairward (talk) 19:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to Aktion T4. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. ► RATEL ◄ 00:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there are sources, even "reliable" sources according to Wikipedia policies, like for example: Alexander Leo, Medical science under dictatorship, New England Journal of Medicine, 1949, No.241, pages 39-47 [1], which clearly state that Aktion T4 was euthanasia and any euthanasia is not unlike Aktion T4 ...

190.25.102.101 (talk) 23:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should not notify selected editors of a discussion. Please see WP:Canvass. The Four Deuces (talk) 02:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RE: I made a few comments about this, but my time is very limited.Biophys (talk) 15:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you voting. Please pay attention that none of the people involved (except may be one of them) actually care about terrorism or communism-related subjects. If they did, they would be busy with creating articles on such subjects, as some users from India do. All they care about is me and a couple of other guys they do not like for whatever reason. This is an artificially created battleground. Hence the complaints about Sade at AE and a recent request from one of them about EEML case to Arbcom (all complaints are about communism and terrorism subjects). Stay away of them, and I am going to stay away too, as far as possible Biophys (talk) 05:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your very good and studied comment on the Saint Augustine page re the term "Catholic". The Article page still is so bleak, and I am still getting comments that I use "The Catholic Encyclopaedia, 1930", and so must be biased or naive! I up-hold the entry in the Conversion paragraph of "...to Christanity" as the coverage is so bleak here. You can see my comments on the talk page, where I commented that there is no coverage on predestination.

I do find the Editor: "OIEnglish" to be very helpful and gets results! He on a break at moment.

MacOfJesus (talk) 16:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to our small conflict over See also in State atheism. Why do you believe that there is any connection between atheism and genocides and terrorism in Communist countries? (Igny (talk) 17:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Please note the WP:3RR restriction for this article. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objections to collaboration... that is at the heart of Wikipedia. However, the article is currently so fundamentally flawed that it needs to be taken back to a stub before any collaboration can begin. I posted a section by section annalysis outlining the problems, and got no reply. Now, I suppose it is possible that my annalysis was too much for other editors to take in one gulp, so I am slowing down... and will re-post each section seperately (giving time for replies before I move on to the next section). Perhaps when we have addressed the problems with the current version of the article we can work on creating a different one. Blueboar (talk) 23:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both you and Sayerslle need to stop edit-warring at Catholic Church. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto at Bosco. You've done three reverts.----moreno oso (talk) 20:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:19, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just wanted to suggest you to have a look at this discussion. Skippy le Grand Gourou (talk) 09:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamic terrorism, Jewish religious terrorism and Christian terrorism included in AfD.Steve Dufour (talk) 23:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My sources do contradict it. Your source is dated 1998 while mine are from 2005-2010. --Userofsite1 (talk) 02:23, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Mamalujo - You might like to check out an article I came across today that needs work: Andrew Morrison. --Technopat (talk) 16:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You completely deleted the section on government secular teachers being attacked and even murdered by bands affiliated with the Cristeros, on the grounds that the cited references were in Spanish. Are you going to delete the section on Cristero saints, which has no references? IAC-62 (talk) 14:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answering your question. Benito Juarez was Freemason, I think he hold the highest grade. In any case whatever people could tell you, even nowadays some Freemasons keep doing open provocations to the Catholic Church in Mexico. There are few churches that I really love in Mexico: The Expiatory Temple in Guadalajara [2], Immaculate Concepcion Church in Hidalgo [3], and few others. You can find a plaque commemorating Benito Juarez just at the corner of Immaculate Conception Church, for he created the state of Hidalgo, and so Freemasons keep placing wreaths with the freemasonry symbols in this church (and others) on Benito Juarez birthday. I do not have a close picture with myself, but I can get one. --189.217.237.6 (talk) 02:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:House of the people.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 15:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged it for deletion because of the lack of a decent rationale, but, to answer your question, it's not at all clear why the image is needed, so, at first glance, I'd say that probably none of the usages are justified. That's the point of a rationale- to explain why an image is justified. J Milburn (talk) 21:57, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you removing the Mary Vincent quotes from the article on the terror rojo article you assembled. why did you call Simone Weil one of stalin's useful idiots? And Orwell?? How well informed are you to say such a moronic thing. do you seriously believe you are displaying NPOV. don't you care even a tiny tiny bit about the integrity of the project. Sayerslle (talk) 19:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While use of verbatim quotes, instead of parphrasing, does need quotation marks, but they are not a copyright issues. It would be plagerism. It would be unethical to pass a work of as our own, even if it is in the public domain, but a work in the public domain can be used for the purpose of profit, etc. ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 01:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The DYK project (nominate) 12:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello. I saw your addition to James Joyce, which brought to mind this book: Segall, Jeffrey (1993). Joyce in America: Cultural Politics and the Trials of Ulysses. London: University of California Press. ISBN 0520077466. It also has deals with the subject of Joyce and religion, and you may find it useful. (In a less productive vein, this discussion—on categories, of all things—also may be of interest.) Back to your edit—would the material not be placed better elsewhere in the article, perhaps toward the end? The article needs a better appraisal section, and the beginning has a chronologic organization, in which your contribution seems out of place, at least in a temporal sense. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 20:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. I see that you did use the book-- sorry I didn't notice it before. (I read your additions on a phone, which is very cumbersome, and therefore only looked at the "diff" and not references.)

The talk page for the Joyce article contains a discussion from a year ago on additional changes needed for the article. Unfortunately I did not follow up on it. It seems that a critical appraisal section, dealing with issues such as religion, critical reception, etc. is indicated, but it would take several dedicated editors, I think, to do that.

On the specific question of his religion: As you know, there is a dispute as to what extent he was, or remained, "Catholic" (and in part the answer may depend on how that latter term is used). I suspect Joyce would have enjoyed the controversy. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 13:45, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your post on the talk page makes it appear that I blanked the section. I just want it to be clear if you were under that impression, that I didn't delete the section under discussion on the 2010 Copiapó mining accident article. Veriss (talk) 01:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I replied to your post on my page. Cheers! Veriss (talk) 01:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

look at the state you've left the article in, read the section on the second republic, it doesn't make sense, youve got a sentence saying ' the mob violence on the churches was perpetrated by nearly all catholics..' etc. you are a joke. Sayerslle (talk) 22:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent change to the Separation of church and state article seems to have broken other references to that ref name. Ie you've changed the name of the reference where the reference is defined, but not changed other places where it is used - so the other references are to a name that doesn't exist. Could you please, either:

1. Update the other references to use the new name, or
2. Create a new reference name (...p111) for the other references,

which ever is appropriate. Thanks Mitch Ames (talk) 12:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you likely to fix this, or shall I move the request to Talk:Separation of church and state to see if someone else can? Mitch Ames (talk) 00:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not real good at that sort of thing, but I'll give it a shot. I would just revert to the previous edit, but the page cites in the citations to one source are to the wrong pages. Mamalujo (talk) 21:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've copied your message of 21:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC) from my talk page to yours. It's easier if we keep the conversation on one page - normally that would be the one on which the discussion started. Mitch Ames (talk) 02:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you can at least put the reference details including page numbers in the article, ideally inside ref tags (no need to worry about reference names if you have trouble with them), but even if it's in the article body text (eg just as plain text in brackets) - as long as the information is there, I or somebody else can fix up the formatting later. Mitch Ames (talk) 02:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Taking into account that the position of the editor you posted to is highly predictable, your last post [4] is inappropriate canvassing. In future please refrain from such steps.
Regards,--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mamalujo. You have new messages at Paul Siebert's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Objection: As I have had a limited amount of time at my disposal I had been unaware of the proposals presented on the other page. It was perfectly proper and fair for Mamalujo to remind me. My "highly predictable" position is irrelevant to this given that the position of editors like yourself is no less "highly predictable". Justus Maximus (talk) 14:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In your edit recent summary, you wrote that '"Ungrammatical, tendentious and unencyclopedic" is not a valid reason to blank sourced material. It can stay while we talk'. Can I take it from this that you intend to participate in the ongoing discussion over the article? As it stands, there is clearly no consensus whatsoever that the section as reintroduced by you is acceptable according to Wikipedia standards of sourcing and neutrality. Frankly, I fail to see why anyone would wish to see such an obviously skewed section in the article anyway - it discredits the remainder, which is at least beginning to take on a more balanced perspective.

I am slightly more optimistic than I have been in the past over the possibility of reaching some sort of compromise over the article, but this will require discussion, rather than endless cycles of reverts. How about trying to play a part in this? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:21, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my response on my user talkpage. Regards Justus Maximus (talk) 14:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You did some good work on the Kerouac page but this is not a neutral, encyclopedic edit. Please remember to heed the NPOV. Viriditas (talk) 08:01, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've neutralized the list article and commented on my talk page and on the list page. Any comments regarding the current, neutral list entry should be made on that talk page. I've also started a discussion on the Kerouac talk page about recent edits. In case you haven't already read it, please familiarize yourself with WP:NPOV. Viriditas (talk) 03:25, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to stop the attacks of user Xufanc, warning him on his bad behavior in Talk:Spanish Civil War (WP:NPOV, WP:VAND, WP:NPA, WP:CIV), without success. Even he blanked a comment in his talk page diff. Now he's saying that we are francoists trying to be the Caudillo's censors... It makes no sense!

173.208.45.178 (talk) 10:14, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Mamalujo. Your addition of extended comments to the listing for Kerouac is WP:UNDUE weight as well of dubious WP:NPOV status. The long standing mention of his flirtation with buddhism is neutral and those who are interested can visit his page where this is relevant. It is not relevant on a mere list. I am formally warning you not to violate WP:3RR. The big red triangle is ugly, so please don't take this as hostility on my part. I am warning Viriditas of the same thing. μηδείς (talk) 04:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

Hi! I notice in your edit summary that you said that the content was "junk"

Why not explain in your edit summary why it was junk? Inadequate edit summaries may mean that another editor will revert you, believing that the edit was inadequately justified. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:54, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion has begun about whether the article Communist terrorism, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Communist terrorism until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. jps (talk) 18:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose, at their own discretion, sanctions on any editor working on pages broadly related to Eastern Europe if the editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. These pages have been defined by the Arbitration Committee to include Communist terrorism. If you continue with your behavior on Communist terrorism, in particular this edit summary, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. The committee's full decision can be read at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Final decision. Thank you, --Mkativerata (talk) 20:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]