User talk:Mamalujo/Archive 1

Welcome
Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! IZAK 08:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Comment
Would you mind weighing in on this debate? --evrik (talk) 15:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I am okay with it. --evrik (talk) 20:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Please hash this out on the talk page.
Instead of just reverting back and forth, please join the discussion on Talk:Amanda Marcotte. We're getting nowhere just cancelling each others' edits. grendel|khan 22:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Devil in the White City
I noticed that your user page linked to Devil in the White City. That being said, I was hoping you would be interested in expanding the article.--88wolfmaster 21:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The View citation
hi- Thanks for adding the Daily News citation - could you add the author of the article and if possible page, if there's no online link available? 18:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

shakespeare project
Just noticed you recent edits on Shakespeare articles, and wanted to invite you to join WikiProject Shakespeare. Wrad 21:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Catholic articles
You are right; me, wrong. I should have left things where they were no matter what else I was doing. I will watch the vote results/correct my errors soon. Hmains 03:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for not working on this. I was in a state of wonder about what would happen next/what to do. The closer who kept the category seemed to think that next time the category was brought up for deletion, it would end up being deleted. I will go ahead and move everything back to the Anti-Catholicism category. I do have a question however. Would it be helpful to isolate the people articles into a sub-category named ??? 'People related to Anti-Catholicism'  I suspect 'Anti-Catholics' my first choice) wouild trigger another deletion nomination immediately.  Thanks Hmains 03:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. Sorry about any trouble caused herein Hmains 03:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Rosie O'Donnell
Donohue's own prejudices have everything to do with his comments about O'Donnell. Read the comments I just added to the article. I can't revert any more today, but if you persist in your unbalanced POV-pushing in the O'Donnell article, I will have to take you to an admin. Wahkeenah 16:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:Anti-Christian (delete)
Mamalujo, it appears that somehow you signed my name on your comment in the anti-Christian delete thread. I would appreciate it very much if you could change it back, using the four tildes as required. Thanks in advance. Anon166 23:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

First paragraph on "spanish inquisition"
Hey there, SaltyBoatr and I are discussing how to improve the first paragraph. Perhaps you would like to join the discussion? For now, I have re-instated your version, since it seemed unambiguous and factually correct. It is a bit long tho.DanielDemaret 17:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Priests
Your removal of "priests" may have been correct, but it was only reflecting the statement "Most of the inquisitors belonged to the secular clergy (priests, rather than members of the religious orders)" to be found further down in the same article. Perhaps you should delete or clarify or even reference that? DanielDemaret 20:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comment. I suppose you might as well remove the statement about priests further down the article then. I certainly have no references to this either way. Regarding the wildly inaccurate numbers, if there were any numbers I put in that has no substance, then could you please remove it for me on my behalf? I really do want the article to be factual, I am just not very good at it. DanielDemaret 16:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, and when I wrote about the priests, I did not check a thing. I was just told that the Lead should, according to WP:LEAD contain a bit from every section after the lead, so I tried that, that's all. DanielDemaret 17:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPOV violations
I have started a discussion regarding the patently non-neutral terms "draconian" and "victim" on Talk:Reign_of_Terror. Fourdee 19:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Preventing edit warring against consensus on Template:Religious_persecution
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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 which gains a consensus among editors. .

As far as I'm concerned the IPs that have been slow-reverting for the past week are you. You are clearly reverting against a broad consensus of editors. If you have a problem with this claim then start an WP:RFC on the template or look at the next steps in WP:DR. Ttiotsw 19:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Hitchens
Mamalujo, I have removed the anti-Catholicism category (for the fourth or fifth time), for the same reason that I have stated before: Hitchens is an antitheist, and is not merely opposed to Catholicism, a specific Christian denomination. If I were to agree to the insertion of this category, I would have to agree to the insertion of all of the categories which Hitchens' (frequently professed) antitheism make redundant: anti-Anglican, anti-Lutheran, anti-Mormon, anti-Sunni, anti-Shia, anti-Sikh, anti-Hindu, anti-Vajrayana, anti-Shinto, anti-etc, etc, etc... If you believe that Hitchens antitheist beliefs should be categorized, the creation of an antitheist category would be an excellent place to start. I do not dispute the fact that many Catholics have taken great offense at Hitchens' work, but it should be noted that the Church itself invited Hitchens (after much consideration, I'm sure) to play the role of the opposition in the beatification of his least favorite Catholic activist. I would assume that if the Church believed Hitchens to be nothing more than an anti-Catholic bigot, they would not have invited him to take part in such a ceremony. Either way, you have already begun work on anti-Catholic allegations within the Criticism section of the article, and, if you believe that there is more to tell, please add said information (with citations). If you would like to respond to my edit/comment, please do. I'll keep your discussion page on my watchlist for the next few days. Peace. --(Ptah, the El Daoud 05:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC))

Theocracy
Hi Mamalujo -- the sentence at issue says this: "The opposite end of the spectrum from separation is a theocracy, in which the state is founded upon the institution of religion, and the rule of law is based on the dictates of a religious court." I don't believe you'll be able to source that statement in regard to Israel, but even if you could, I'm pretty sure I could find you sources saying the opposite. I think it's easier not to include it, simply because that would require this type of clarification. Would welcome your thoughts in any case. Regards, Mackan79 17:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Spanish civil war
You just deleted an addition of mine which contributed to highlight the extension of the massacre perpetrated by the winners, often with Church benediction citing it as POV. You are far from neutral in that. I too am Catholic and I too have just read Beevor's. When the Church takes openly side in a civil war, and that after having always supported the landed gentry against the poor (hence the widespread "anti-Christian" hate against priests in Spain, which was political, not religious), I cannot leave them only as helpless victims of a satanic hate. Truth may hurt. Basil II 20:25, 13 June 2007 (CET)

Image:SpanishLeftistsShootStatueOfChrist.jpg
Image:SpanishLeftistsShootStatueOfChrist.jpg is obviously not a political poster. You should find another license to include it in Wikipedia. --Error 00:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Bosco
Please stop to push forward that absurd info in Don Bosco. It's totally wrong. Fantasy... like Conan the Barbarian or Star Wars, have you'n'idea? It's nearly WP:vandalism, so beware. Ciao and good wikiwork. --Attilios 18:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You're nearing the 3RR. Beware. --Attilios 09:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Removed Image
Thanks for your note, I posted a reply on the article's talk page. The image I removed was not from The Sun but from another paper. Majoreditor 02:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Notability of Clare Asquith
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Clare Asquith, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Clare Asquith seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it 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 assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Clare Asquith, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 21:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Historical persecution by Christians
It was a non-admin closure of a controversial AFD. Feel free to DRV it, it should be relisted. --Core desat 23:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Mao was not an atheist thinker or activist
Hello Mamalujo. Mao was not an atheist thinker or activist. Mao was a politician. He didn't make any contributions towards atheism. Maybe, Mao was an irreligious person; however, you have to make a some contributions towards atheistic philosophy to be considered as an atheist thinker or activist. Best of luck! RS2007 03:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Repression of religion does not make one an atheist thinker or activist. Mao was against religion because he saw it as a rival power. Only those who have contributed towards atheistic philosophy can be considered as an atheist thinker or activist. RS2007 03:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Template:religious persecution
Regarding my recent revert, note that I do not necessarily disagree with adding State atheism on principle - I disagree with its basis and roots in Wikipedia policy. The article State atheism states nothing about the effects on religion of state atheism, its similarity to persecution, or anything that establishes a strong connection between the article and religious persecution. That strong connection is needed to include it in the template.

As you seem connected and involved in the issue, and probably know a great deal about it, please expand the State atheism article to such a level that it does establish that connection - then you will hear no objections from my side to adding it to the template. --User:Krator (t c) 22:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

3RR and Template:Religious_persecution ?
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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 which gains a consensus among editors. I also see an IP address involved and whois says it's from Irvine CA - was that you ? If so then that takes you over 3RR. Initially I wanted a balance with State religion as a discriminatory strategy WRT the current issue of the UK Acts of Settlement (this is my current example - I can find others but that's not the point). I'm not talking "persecution" like others but "discrimination" which the template clearly includes. Others disagree that either should be included and I'm inclined to go with the consensus to avoid edit wars whereas you just want your one version to stay put against all others. Ttiotsw 08:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)