User talk:Mamalujo/Archive 2

McLuhan
After 1937, when he converted, he taught only at Catholic institutions - Assumption, Saint Louis, and St Michael's of the University of Toronto where he remained for the rest of his life. St Mike's was his affiliation at the University of Toronto throughout his career there, including while being the head of the Centre. Also there was the year at Fordham, a Jesuit institution. So, I don't know what you were referring to as being in the article that contradicts this, but in fact it is correct. Please don't revert it - leave a note on the talk page if you know of something else. I added a reference to his religion being a private matter - the ref was there already a few words prior, but if it makes you happy, I repeated it - although I don't know why you think it needed a ref. Tvoz | talk 01:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * He was not faculty at Cambridge 1939-40, he was there as a student, completing his masters and working on his PhD dissertation. And his appointment was with St. Michael's College  of the University of Toronto - this is not incidental, it is a Roman Catholic college that  is  affiliated with the secular University of Toronto, but in fact McLuhan was a member of the St Mike's faculty, taught there for over 30 years, attended mass there, ate there, and his Centre was situated on the St Mike's campus.  About his faith being private, no one is saying that his faith had no influence on his point of view or that he hid it - the meaning of that phrase is that his work was not overtly about his  faith, and in fact he kept it as a private matter, according to his major biographer, as cited.  It is not what he wrote about overtly by and large - of course it informed his views, but that was private. In other words, his body of work was not theological, it was secular- and he  generally didn't talk about his own religious views when writing about the media, giving talks, or even in conversation.  That's from his biographies (and backed by observation, but let's stick to citation)  and is referenced as such - saying that one can read in his work the influence of his faith is not the point that is being made anyway, and could be considered OR.  He treated his religion as a private matter- he was not a proselytizer or public spokesman for Catholicism  - that's what is meant. Tvoz | talk 02:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

3RR Danger
It's occured to me that we are both in violation of 3RR, you seem to have re-reverted all of my own previous reverts so I can't retract any of them, if any of my reverts that I haven't noticed still stand let me know and I'll revert them back. As it is it's now up to you to revert back your own reverts to compensate for your breach of this rule.Nwe 15:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Genocides in history
Thanks for the edit "Americas - balance added", It was just what I hoped someone would add to give my initial edit on this subject a balanced POV. --Philip Baird Shearer 17:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

October 2007
Please do not "anti-Catholic" to describe a list of people even if you believe it to be true; this a blatant violation of WP:BIO on Wikipedia. Your reverts have been reverted. Cheers, Benjiboi 03:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Please engage the talk page
Mamalujo,

Will you please engage the talk page of that entry instead of simply edit warring over a tag. I don't believe I have violated 3RR yet and I am having a hard time believing that you are willing to take the effort to utilize my talk page to issue warnings but not the one at the entry to discuss content. I agree wholeheartedly that the entry has problems, but that tag is simply inaccurate. Now is your chance to explain why you don't agree. Join me at the talk page please.PelleSmith 23:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I answered on my talk page and the entry talk. Cheers.PelleSmith 00:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Please read the entry talk page. I have provided an academic reference that also treats religious violence in this broad capacity.  Cheers.PelleSmith 18:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Please avoid POV on Bio's per WP:BIO
"Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space. An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy."

Please exercise more caution when labeling people as anti-Catholic; also adding lengthy press release quotes from The Catholic League is not encyclopedic and violates both WP:RS and WP:BIO. Benjiboi 20:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Explaining a revert
Hi; I just reverted on The Golden Compass (film), but my edit summary got truncated. I agree with you that Kidman's statement about Catholic essence seems questionable, but that doesn't belong in an article on the film itself. Maybe on her bio page or something: knock yourself out. Best, Anthony Krupp (talk) 23:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, let me retract my invitation to knock yourself out: it seems from the warning tags on your talk page that there are many reasons not to do so (like WP:BIO). Best, Anthony Krupp (talk) 23:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Can I ask you not to re-add the category of Anti-Catholicism? The filmmakers specifically watered down the elements, and it's quite apparent that the controversy is that watching the film would lead to the books.  Per the definition of Anti-Catholicism, it's supposed to be an attack on Catholics.  When it comes to the film, the Catholics are doing the attacking.  Thus, the categorization is not appropriate for the film. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I would like to note that you have added and re-added the category to The Golden Compass (film) (on December 5, December 6, December 9, December 11, and December 14, so far) without ever engaging an editor on the Talk page. Please see WP:consensus and remember to discuss matters, rather than reverting every few days. It would be helpful, for example, to know why you are adding this category to this film. Also, it is not the Catholics, but rather some Catholics who are attacking the film. I trust you understand that the Catholic League is not the Catholic Church. Best, Anthony Krupp (talk) 21:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Invitation
There's a revived Wikiproject at WikiProject Secret Societies if you want to join in. JASpencer (talk) 15:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Daniel Goldhagen
I have reverted your insertion of the 'publication halted' paragraph in the Daniel Goldhagen article because it is in no way supported by the citation you provided and is potentially libelous of the subject of the article (WP:BLP). The article in the Catholic League, republished from the Weekly Standard, is indeed harshly critical of Goldhagen's work and may merit inclusion elsewhere in the article - but the name Michael Cardinal von Faulhaber (spelling may be wrong) is not mentioned in the article, nor is an injuction against publication because of libel mentioned. Avruch talk 21:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You are correct, it is mentioned. I must have mispelled it when I searched the document by name. You note that it is quoting a German court, but it is not in fact doing so (and the article doesn't claim to be doing so). I'd be interested in having an actual quote (translated or otherwise) rather than a regurge of the court's decision by someone who obviously views Goldhagen with great disdain. Writing that Goldhagen slandered, libelled or defamed someone without direct evidence of a conclusion to that effect is a violation of BLP. Avruch talk 21:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Happy 2008!
Just dropping a note to wish you a prosperous and above all happy 2008. We're constantly at loggerheads, but please never take any of my postulations, comments or proddings as personal attacks ;) It's been very instructive to bash and be bashed, and on many occasions a pleasure to rebate and be rebated ;) Dr Benway (talk) 16:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Ethnic and religious slurs
A tag has been placed on Ethnic and religious slurs requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page (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 would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Redfarmer (talk) 20:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Ethnic and religious slurs
A tag has been placed on Ethnic and religious slurs requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page (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 would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Redfarmer (talk) 20:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

January 2008
Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself. Please use the template on the page instead if you disagree with the deletion. Redfarmer (talk) 20:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, if you're moving it to a category, that's fine. I don't have any objection to that. Redfarmer (talk) 20:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)