User talk:ADM/Archive 3

Archives
1 2 3

3RR on Antonia Zerbisias
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. 70.171.247.44 (talk)

The following sentence was removed. ADM (talk) 07:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Zerbisias controversially posted on her Twitter site that she wished reknown conservative Michelle Malkin were shot.


 * Motive : Remove WP:BLP violation. LifeSiteNews and Michelle Malkin are not reliable sources, even more so for a negative BLP assertion. User:70.171.247.44

Latinitas Foundation
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Latinitas Foundation, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/institutions_connected/latinitas/documents/index_en.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 13:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

An article you created maybe deleted soon: Tools which can help you
The article you created: Algeria–Holy See relations may be deleted from Wikipedia.

There is an ongoing debate about whether the article you created should be deleted here:
 * Articles for deletion/Algeria–Holy See relations.

The faster you respond on this page, the better chance the article you created can be saved.

Finding sources which mention the topic of the article you created is the very best way to avoid an article being deleted Findsources3:
 * Find sources for Algeria–Holy See relations: google news recent, google news old, google books, google scholar, NYT recent, NYT old, a9, msbooks, msacademic ...You can then cite these results in the Article for deletion discussion.

Also, there are several tools and helpful editors on Wikipedia who can help you:
 * 1. List the page on Article Rescue Squadron. You can get help listing your page on the Article Rescue Squadron talk page.
 * 2. At any time, you can ask any administrator to move your article to a special page. (Called userfication)


 * 3. You can request a mentor to help you: Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User. But don't wait for a mentor to respond to you before responding on the article for deletion page.
 * 4. When trying to delete a page, veteran editors love to use a lot of rule acronyms. These acronyms don't need to intimidate you. Here is a list of acronyms you can use yourself: Deletion debate acronyms, which will help you argue that the article should be kept.

If the page you created is deleted, you also have many options available. Good luck! Ikip (talk) 14:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Holy See vs. Vatican
I replied on the AfD discussion - you are right. Check the latest version. I was meaning to trim the article down a bit, focus it more on the relations, but you got there first! I think it is now reasonably focused, but gives enough background for the casual reader. That is, for someone who is interested in Holy See relations but does not know much about the history of Algeria, or for someone who is interested in Algerian relations but does not know much about the Holy See. I would be very surprised if the article were deleted. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Crusades
Not sure why the material is being deleted. Could you please furnish edit summaries for future changes so we can all understand the deletes? Thanks. Student7 (talk) 20:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I created historiography of the Crusades. You seem to understand the subject of the article well, whose purpose is to better distinguish the actual events from the historical perception of the events, an issue which is highly sociological and which often resembles debates surrounding other historical events, such as the Inquisition or the Witch hunts. By the way, User:Adam Bishop apparently read the article and added it to the Crusades project. He had already been planning to create an article about historiography, but I guess I did it before him. ADM (talk) 20:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Attacks in
Please do not make personal attacks. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images, especially those in violation of our Biographies of living persons policy, will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 23:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It wasn't an attack article. I was just forking content in order to do an NPOV check. I would like to ask you to restore the page. There really was a scandal, see for instance Sexual abuse scandal in Boston archdiocese. ADM (talk) 00:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You have no sources (since you used "citation needed" tags), therefore deletion review can only result in an overwhelming support of the deletion. Get some reliable sources, then we'll talk. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 00:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't use citations needed, since it was already a fork with 4 independent sources. You're mixing that up with another entry that I created recently which I had been working on. ADM (talk) 00:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You may be right on this one; sorry about the mix-up. I was going by the tag when I warned you off of the "attack."  I'll go ahead and restore the article.  Thanks for not climbing down my throat.  --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, sorry about that. Your references do check out after all. I just never expected obituaries to mention sex scandals, and the citation needed tags that were present made me go overboard since these are serious allegations which could damage the reputations of real people. I've inserted an appropriate tag in the now-restored article. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 01:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Sexual abuse scandal in Worcester diocese
Please see Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard. I'm concerned about the reliability of the references you are using. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 02:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I was merely transfering old content and not adding new information ; some the associated sources include SNAP. However, a good idea would be to diversify the sources because of issues with the SNAP links. ADM (talk) 02:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I've deleted the article for now. I'll restore it if better sources are found. For these types of allegations we cannot hope that someone will come along later and fix it up. Kevin (talk) 03:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I would like to ask you to re-create the page. The scandal really occured and there are plenty of sources that are not attacks against anyone. See for example this National Catholic Reporter article about the abuser who got 50 years in jail. It is a fairly notable scandal, and the page is mostly modeled on the article Sexual abuse scandal in Boston archdiocese. ADM (talk) 03:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Your post removal
Could you please tell me why you removed my comment from the Carrie Prejean section on the WP:BLP Noticeboard? I've since re-added it. Editors are not allowed to remove posts that were made by other editors.  Caden  is cool  04:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I must have been editing at the same time as you were. It must have been an accident, a computer glitch if you like. ADM (talk) 04:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay man that's cool. No worries.  Caden  is cool  04:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry I meant to say WP:BLP Noticeboard and not ANI. I changed it here so it makes sense.  Caden  is cool  05:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Refs
Hey ADM - Sorry I didn't get your message until now, I was getting my four nightly hours of vivid hallucination and paralysis. Awesome job on the refs at Canonical situation of the Society of St. Pius X, though!  Flying Toaster  15:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Christian Scholars Group
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Christian Scholars Group, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process&#32; because of the following concern:
 * No indication of notability

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  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. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 07:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I have a list of the 22 academics. They are both collectively and individually notable. ADM (talk)

Holy Spirit
We would be grateful if you would discuss wholesale removals of well-referenced sections from articles before doing so, please. That article is in the middle of a rewrite, and being actively discussed. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Even if you can re-write it, I don't think it would be a bad idea to have an entry on gender of the Holy Spirit or religious views on the Holy Spirit. The first one is about a modern theological debate, while the second one is a useful article on comparative religion. ADM (talk) 14:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

May 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. 13:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I expanded the article criticism of Pope John Paul II. This was already discussed in the talk page. Wojtyla is already dead, so it doesn't make sense to leave the criticism on the page now that he is no longer alive. Therefore, it becomes more historical than actual, and more political than religious. Also, there is a double standard being applied to John Paul II, in that recent pontiffs like Paul VI do not get criticized in the same way. ADM (talk) 13:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

(copied from my talk page)
 * Hi ADM, I looked on the talk page but I couldn't see that a consensus had been reached about removing (or drastically shortening your edit) the 'Criticism' section. I would suggest that you bring up on the talk page, before attempting this action.
 * Your other edit removed a substantial section of the 'Judaism' section without any explanation or discussion. I see from the edit history that you have attempted this same edit on a couple of other ocassions and have been reverted by other editors, so I also reverted as 'unexplained removal of content'. Please do not continue repeating this action, without discussion.
 * Kind Regards     13:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The part about Judaism certainly deserves to be there, but I saw there was already Pope John Paul II and Judaism, and so I considered that the sub-article has a default priority over the main entry. The same is probably true about the criticism part. There are related entries about Paul of Tarsus and Judaism and Criticism of the Roman Catholic Church in order to smoothen the reading of certain entries. I think it is really more a question of form than of substance, since none of the edits really changes the entire article, it just re-arranges it in a different way. ADM (talk) 13:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Saint Paul deletions
You deleted cited information from the Saint Paul page. Please don't delete cited information unless you take it up on the talk page. As for the Saint Paul article, there's a lot of uncited information there. Try deleting some of that. Leadwind (talk) 00:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * See Paul of Tarsus and Judaism. Most of the information was transfered there, so I don't think there is really much of a point in restoring what merely happens to be re-arranged material. ADM (talk) 01:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Just because the information appears in one place doesn't mean it can't appear in another as well. This page if full of uncited information. Let's get rid of that material first. Leadwind (talk) 01:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Ambassador to the Holy See
Hi ADM. I see that you added Diaz as current Ambassador on the article. Has he been confirmed by the Senate yet? If not, he is still a nominee, not Ambassador. Mamalujo (talk) 04:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Several newspapers reported that he had been nominated as ambassador and didn't speculate on whether or not the Senate would approve of it. I suspect that he will be selected because he hasn't been criticized by any significant voices in the Church or the State. His chances of being vetted are about as good as those of Obama's new Supreme Court nominee, who is supposedly a centrist, making it difficult to build opposition on the right or the left. ADM (talk) 04:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Why are you removing my content on the Holy See article? I have submitted a request for vandalism intervention because of repeated deletions of my content without explanation. Patrick Whelan MD (talk) 15:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * As far as I'm concerned, the content belongs in the entry Miguel H. Diaz, not elsewhere. Also, information about other ambassadors goes in their associated article. Finally, the Cathdems account that you have is debatable because it claims to represent the group Catholic Democrats. ADM (talk) 16:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Bible
I figured as much, I just thought it might be good to bring it up on talk so you don't catch any flak by mistake. :) Soxwon (talk) 18:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

An interesting person you are
I just noticed some radical work by you at the Gender of God page. I notice you seem to be radical in other places and don't talk much. Also you don't offer an email contact.

While what you've left at GoG is very terse, it has cut out a great deal of POV guff. But it has also cut out some key sourced material not available in other articles. I'll be back at GoG at some point: what you've got there at the page is a better starting point than leaving much of the other fluff around. I prefer it to what was there before, so thank you. Also, your subheadings work nicely I think.

There's something about what you've done that suggests an effective strategy at Wiki. Some articles collect barnicles. A ruthless outsider bypassing consensus avoids people's feelings being hurt. I can't see it being the best normal practice, but I can see it doing good. Cautiously I wish you well, though I've some suspicions you may have an agenda regarding what information is available at Wiki on the person of the Holy Spirit. I assume good faith, but I do defend sourced info.

Wishing you efficient, effective, helpful Wiki contributing, including drastic deletion where that is genuinely judicious. Cheers. Alastair Haines (talk) 07:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Regarding, the article gender of God, I may have been a bit rough on the edges, but I was just making sure that no information was being needlessly repeated on one entry or another, such as gender of God in Christianity or gender of God in Judaism. Also, concerning the article gender of the Holy Spirit, it is true that I am personally inclined to view the Spirit as male, but that is mainly because most biblical verses on the subject explicitly use Him instead of It or Her when refering to the holy dove. I also think that mariology tends to support this view because the BVM is often refered to as the Spouse of the Holy Spirit. ADM (talk) 07:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah! Thank you so much for a concise and open comment. Yes! I find it extraordinary that some people overlook the Spirit's role in impregnating Mary (Mt 1:20; Lk 1:35).
 * I have not checked, but simply believe your good faith, honesty and down right hard work moving information from one article to another. I don't expect to change your mind, but in a number of cases, just as leads to articles summarise (and hence duplicate) content that follows, so too certain articles can replicate content from others.
 * Must there be no duplication between Gospel of John, John 8 and Pericope Adulterae? Must Predestination and Calvinism have no sections in common? Will all readers interested in Calvinism be interested in predestination, or vice versa?
 * I'm sure you have such things in mind when you edit, you get my point. Feel free to quibble with me when I return to GoG, some months away at least.
 * Leadwind, above, is a friend I've not been in touch with for some time. Should you have difficulties, like the above, please bear me in mind as a possible mediator in any context and with any editor or editors. I cannot promise to take your side, but I will certainly be sympathetic.
 * I imagine you can look after yourself well enough, but sometimes Wiki can get heated. I think I value: your unique style of editing, your sharp mind, your genuine interest in topics and knowledge of sources. I don't want us to lose you, yet fear your style, which should be accomodated, may lead to an encounter or too you might find frustrating. Hopefully I'm wrong. But you know where to find me if I'm not.
 * Pax tecum Alastair Haines (talk)

Gender of God
Thanks for your work on Gender of God and related articles. The reorganization looks good. --Alynna (talk) 20:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Bonnie Erbe
It looks like some of the material in Bonnie Erbe to which there are objections was added by you back in March. Since that material appears to be based on interpetations of primary sources, and since the subject appears to object to those interpretations, maybe it'd be better to leave it out pending secondary sources.  Will Beback   talk    03:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Whatever her objections are, I find it unsettling that she simply takes it out like that, herself, and not an anonymous user or third party, like it would be expected in a typical content dispute. Does WP have any sort of policy on this, because it would be interesting if you could show me what is usually done when people unilaterally remove content from their own entry. ADM (talk) 03:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * WP has two pages that are worth mentioning here. WP:BLP calls on all editors to remove unsourced or poorly sourced material found in BLPs. WP:COI strongly discourages conflicted from editing articles directly. You restored the information that I deleted, so COI isn't really the key issue. I'd like to stubify the article again, but I want to make sure that this won't turn into an edit war.   Will Beback    talk    03:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't have a conflict of interest, I was just collecting a bit of material from her press editorials. Since I don't know her personally, I am fairly sure that she has more of a conflict of interest than I do. Also, I personally wouldn't mind if you re-stubbed the entry because I don't think the material I added was terribly important. ADM (talk) 03:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if I implied that you have a conflict of interest too. I'm sure you added the material in good faith, and we have similar material in countless articles about writers. And I'm not even saying that you misstated the subject's views. But while there's a dispute I just think it'd be best to stub the article and work it back up with highly reliable sources. Thanks for understanding.   Will Beback    talk    04:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)