User talk:Donbodo

Please do not replace Unitarian Christianity with "see Unitarianism". Instead discuss the proposed merger on the relevant talk pages until a concensus is formed. Aleta 03:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The Unitarian Christianity article has several significant points that differ than the Unitarianism article. The only mention of Unitarian Christianity in that article are two lines about the AUC. The AUC article doesn't contain the important Unitarian Christianity info. CaliE75 09:58, 9 July 2007 (PST)

Welcome to Wikipedia!
Dear Donbodo: Welcome to Wikipedia, a free and open-content encyclopedia. I hope you enjoy contributing. To help get you settled in, I thought you might find the following pages useful:


 * Introduction
 * Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * Frequently Asked Questions
 * How do you edit a page?
 * How do you revert to a previous version of a page?
 * What about copyrights?
 * Community Portal

Don't worry too much about being perfect. Very few of us are! Just in case you are not perfect, click here to see how you can avoid making common mistakes.

If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on your user talk (discussion) page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. A third option is to ask a more experienced user such as an administrator.

One last bit of advice: please sign any discussion comment with four tildes ( ~ ). The software will automatically convert this into your signature which can be altered in the "Preferences" tab at the top of the screen. I hope I have not overwhelmed you with information. If you need any help just let me know. Once again welcome to Wikipedia, and don't forget to tell us about yourself and be BOLD! Aleta 03:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Reply to email
After looking side-by-side I see that the two articles did have the same txt, and redirected Unitarian Christianity to Unitarianism. As for who I am, what would you like to know, specifically? Aleta 04:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit summaries
Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Aleta 22:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Stonebw01.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Stonebw01.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 18:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

History of Unitarianism
Apparently when the page was carved out of the Unitarianism article, no reference section was included. I've fixed it now. :) Aleta   (Sing)  19:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Notability of Old Man River (restaurant)
A tag has been placed on Old Man River (restaurant) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Ecoleetage (talk) 13:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello and Happy New Year. I cannot restore the article, since I am not an admin.  If you don't have a copy of the text you prepared, I would recommend contacting an admin who can either email a copy to you or put it online in your sandbox.  The admin DGG has done this for me in the past and you can always say that I recommended your inquiry.  However, I may suggest that you not put any article online without proper references.  In the state it was in, the article failed WP:RS and was open for speedy deletion.  I will be happy to work with you on the rewrite.  Thank you and be well. Ecoleetage (talk) 22:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I've emailed it to you, because it will need substantial revision.  As an admin,  I wouldn't say that we can speedy an article for lacking RSs, as long as it indicates notability, and I think it did, so I am not sure the deletion on that grounds was justified--especially when it did have an underconstruction tag, but we certainly do remove articles tht appear to have their main purpose as promotion, and as a reviewing administrator, I would have speedy deleted it on that basis without hesitation.


 * You might do much better to start over. Please read our Business FAQ (which  applies whether or not there is a conflict of interest), The text reads as if it were at least in part copied from another site or publication, and, even if licensed properly to us, it needs to be written as an encyclopedia  article, not a press release. By all means try again, but please check articles on other restaurants here. I'm sure Ecoleetage will help you check it--he knows very well what makes a good article. DGG (talk) 05:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

New Wave
You did not provide a cite for the claim that the Modern Lovers were a new wave band or that this proves that new wave came before punk. I am not unsympathetic to your theory (although the pre punk "New Wave" groups I would cite are Sparks and Roxy Music). But your or my theory can not go into the article as that is original research. Only reliably cited material (some of which were deleted by you or the non user editors) can go in. You used a cite from the Reynolds book pages from 130 and 131 where the words "New Wave" are never mentioned to make claims that were never made or at least only partially made. If you accurately quote from a reliable source to make an addition as you did in the Alternative Rock article it your additions will be left alone. As for the broader issue that is a talk page matter. Edkollin (talk) 21:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I have a US paperback edition. There is a different edition for the US which came out a year later. So you are probably right Edkollin (talk) 22:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Just noticed these comments. Sparks and Roxy Music would definitely not have been classed as "New Wave" in the UK - they were essentially seen as glam rock (along with David Bowie), although musically more adventurous than most others in that genre.  The term "New Wave" in the UK meant slightly later bands and artists like Talking Heads, Devo, Elvis Costello etc.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:41, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Christianity
Thank you for your edits at Christianity. We are well aware that 100% of Christians do not agree that Jesus is the Incarnation of God - however the article is giving an overview of the subject, and the vast majority of Christians do believe exactly that. Minor differences in belief are dealt with elsewhere in the article. Please see Undue weight for a policy on how we handle such situations. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Unitarianism
Donbodo, mind if I ask a question. What do you consider is the difference between Unitarianism as a Christology and Arianism? In ictu oculi (talk) 21:10, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Some Unitarians are Arians (and some are Socinians). Some Arians are Unitarians. But Unitarianism is more than a Christology. This is what I have been trying to tell you. --Donbodo (talk) 05:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 1. "Some Arians are Unitarians" - sorry so you did answer this here on your talk page. I shouldn't have asked here if I wasn't going to check for answers. Okay, well this isn't correct. See Talk:Unitarianism
 * 2. "Unitarianism is more than a Christology." Is it? General Assembly of Unitarian and Free Christian Churches is more than a Christology, but what else is Unitarianism other than a Christology? Please respond on Talk:Unitarianism. Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Use of edit summaries
I see that you were asked to bear this in mind back in 2007. You have clearly been on the site long enough to understand the implications of not giving good reasons for edits. Please review WP:REVTALK. The last 100 edits of Unitarianism contain at least 10 edits of yours without summary. This is way too casual, in fact. Your approach makes it very hard to track what is going on at the level on content. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The vast majority of my edits contain summaries. My minor edits occasionally lack them. But I will try to do better.--Donbodo (talk) 04:10, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'm asking for your full cooperation in getting Unitarianism into good shape. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:48, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Socinianism
Hi Donbodo, it's fine for you to be tagging very basic things - such as the Socinian's break with Simon Budny with cn tags, but I would guess in a lot of these case a click through, eg Simon Budny to provide the history refs. Cheers In ictu oculi (talk) 00:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Other Wikipedia articles, unfortunately do not count as proper references. --Donbodo (talk) 05:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No, but someone familiar with the history of Unitarianism wouldn't be tagging such basic things.
 * I'm somewhat concerned about your edit to Ferenc Dávid, for the reasons stated on Talk. I hope you haven't been making similar edits to Socinianism and Polish Brethren. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:25, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I tagged those statements because they needed tags. Simple as that. Regarding the other articles, every edit I make conforms to Wikipedia guidelines.--Donbodo (talk) 23:31, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Donbodo, re "I know more about this historical period than you do" I have yet to see a single edit from you that expresses more than your personal antipathy to the roots of Unitarianism and attempts to either impose your own beliefs on people, or delete them from articles. You're not even barking up the right tree. If you want to find 17th Century believers who share your own beliefs (which is hardly a good starting point for editing historical articles, but whatever), you should be looking in Belorussia and possibly the Netherlands, not Hungary and Poland. Good luck. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:41, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, I think it is you who have something to prove. You have systematically gone through all of the Unitarians and tried to make them all look like Christadelphians/Church of God. I accept Unitarians for what they are: Unitarians. It has nothing to do with my personal beliefs. Don't rewrite history, In ictu oculi. --Donbodo (talk) 03:24, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Donbodo. If you knew more about the 17th Century you'd know they evidently weren't Christadelphians/COG because they believed in the devil and were less adventisty. What the Polish and Hungarian Socinians were was Socinians, amazingly. You have been advised by several other editors to stop trying to rewrite/delete early Unitarian history from Unitarian pages. Why not do something positive, like provide sourced information on modern Unitarian groups? In ictu oculi (talk) 07:01, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you know what Socinians believed? Because I think you don't, or at least didn't before I began revealing pertinent information about them. I am a historian by profession, so I know what I am doing. Modern Unitarianism doesn't interest me very much. I work in the past. And I have NOT been advised to stop rewriting any pages by anyone. And I have never deleted any information. I have only updated it and made it more accurate. YOU are the one who deletes other people's material. And I advise you to adhere to Wikipedia guidelines about reversions. I point to the article on Ferenc David as an example. When I added information and source material, you simply reverted the article back. This is not what Wikipedia advises. --Donbodo (talk) 21:50, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Does that mean you a middle school history teacher? I ask this because "I am a historian by profession" is a claim to me that can only mean at least that. I am not, but I have been reading books in Polish and Latin (and translating from them for academics part time) on this for 20 years, since first visiting Rakow and Cluj-Napoca, and ...yes... the next time you do something like delete the Hungarian Unitarian statement of faith and insert a sentence that says something that is not correct, yes the article will be returned to the state it was and we can discuss it on Talk.
 * Anyway, if modern Unitarianism doesn't interest you very much then what period of Unitarianism does interest you? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:59, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Anything pre-1900. I don't speak of my private life on Wikipedia, and there certainly is no need for me to justify my knowledge or education to you (the edits should be judged by their own merits), but if you must know, I have a Ph.D. in history and teach on the college level. Let me add that I can spot a religious agenda a mile away, so please be careful. --Donbodo (talk) 16:07, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Ichthus: January 2012
 In this issue...

- Ichthus is published by WikiProject Christianity For submissions and subscriptions contact the Newsroom
 * From the Editor
 * What are You doing For Lent?
 * Fun and Exciting Contest Launched
 * Spotlight on WikiProject Catholicism

Christianity newsletter: New format, new focus
Hello, I notice that you aren't currently subscribed to Ichthus, the WikiProject Christianity newsletter. Witha new format, we would be delighted to offer you a trial three-month, money-back guarantee, subscription to our newsletter. If you are interested then please add your name tothis list, and you will receive your first issue shortly. From June 2013 we are starting a new "in focus" section that tells our readers about an interesting and important groups of articles. The first set is about Jesus, of course. We have also started a new book review section and our own "did you know" section. In the near future I hope to start a section where a new user briefly discusses their interests.-- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds 20:57, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Unitarianism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Freeman (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Common Era
Please use the talk page now as you’ve been reversing three times. I don’t think it will help but you could quote from the article which is behind a pay wall. Doug Weller talk 20:34, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)