User talk:Mamalujo/Archive 3

List of groups referred to as cults
I've reverted your deletions from List of groups referred to as cults so that we can talk about them on the talk page. I beleive everything you deleted was sourced. The list has carefully-defined criteria, and if a group meets the criteria we include regardless of our own opinions. •:• Will Beback •:• 03:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit to John de Gray
I appreciate trying to be more precise, but you broke the infobox. The fact that his election was quashed is explained in the text. I could possibly be incorporated in the infobox, just not in the fields, as trying to change those breaks the box. I'll attempt to change the actual statements in the box, so the box won't be broken. Ealdgyth | Talk 20:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That works too! Thanks for not breaking it. Ealdgyth | Talk 20:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No problems at all, glad to have someone else checking the articles I'm working on. Thanks!Ealdgyth | Talk 20:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Please do not alter quotes
Hi, I appreciate your concern that Catholic priests not be falsely labeled as pedophiles however we do not censor and we don't alter quotes to suit our needs. We could provide a reliable source to show that no priest was involved in pedophilia to balance out those statements however. Benjiboi 12:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Dear Mamalujo, Benjiboi has been reported for his disruptive behaviour. Don't let him intimidate you - you are exactly right about the "quotes". And pay no attention to his last strange sentence. Str1977 (talk) 17:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Anno Mundi
Per various discussions on WP:MOS, please do not use Christian-specific dating in articles that are important to religions other than Christianity. Also, per various ArbCom discussions, changing an article which already has a distinct style to another one against consensus has been considered disruptive. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 16:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The article contains both Hebrew and Christian calendars, and as such, it is inappropriate to use Anno Domini. -- Avi (talk) 02:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Amanda Marcotte
The reason I have twice removed the quotes is that their inclusion is biased. She is notable not only for her inflammatory statements, and even if she were, repeating only the most outrageous of them--i.e., those **selected and repeated by her critics**--places favor on those who criticised her. That's not to say that the quotes weren't rephrehensible, or that they were, but to use the majority of the article to repeat those statements of hers found most widely offensive, without any analysis, seems unfair. Placement bias is a bias like any other. And finally, an article that is mostly quotes isn't really the purview of wikipedia, as opposed to wikiquotes.

I do understand your argument--that wikipedia's mandate is to give the maximum amount of information in those fields which make people most notable--but I feel that it's invalidated in this case, in that none of her quotes were drawn from, e.g., the posts that convinced the Edwards campaign to hire her in the first place, or from other noteworthy posts she made.

I'd like to draw your attention to the Criticism_of_Tony_Blair article. Although it contains quite a lot of his positions that have been criticised, no section consists of simply a list of his statements others found offensive, in their most offensive form.

I won't revert again, because the version that is currently up is the one that predates me, and to stem off an edit war, but I invite you onto the talk page to discuss this with me, and the user who made the original edit. If, as I suspect, we find ourselves unable to resolve the dispute shortly, I suggest we petition a mod for arbitration.

I'd like to mention at this point that I agree that this is a difficult and ambiguous case, and if anything I've said above is insulting or agressive, it wasn't meant to be. You know how it can be on the internet with energizing issues.

Thanks so much for your involvement on this--66.65.125.206 (talk) 22:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

EDIT: I also see that the issue had come up (somewhat) before on the talk page, something I had not noticed until just now. I think I'm bringing up something new, but if I ever end up in an area that was already decided, please don't hesitate to let me know. Thanks!--66.65.125.206 (talk) 23:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Non-free fair use rationale for Image:Miguel_Pro.gif
Hi. I noticed you blanked the non-free fair use rationale for Image:Miguel_Pro.gif, but you did not leave a reason for why in the edit summary. Could you please respond on the talk page: Image_talk:Miguel_Pro.gif. Thank you. Dgf32 (talk) 19:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem. Thanks for getting back to me! Dgf32 (talk) 21:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

A Moral Reckoning
Hello. Regarding your removal of sourced information from this article, please take conversation to the talk page. As policy sets out at Consensus, when someone reverts your change, the proper procedure is to discuss it. In respect to this particular proposed change, I've been waiting a reply since January 8th, and, if you continue to feel the information is inappropriate, I will be happy to discuss alternatives for handling that material with you there. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Collapsable sections
Hi! You have done considerable work on the Fascism sidebar. There has been considerable discussion on the issue of the collapsable sections of templates like that one. I created a centralized place for discussion about this issue here. I hope you can bring your views to the discussion. - C mon (talk) 18:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Godspy
A tag has been placed on Godspy requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, 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 indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

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 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. Excirial ( Talk, Contribs ) 20:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Godspy
I have nominated Godspy, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Godspy. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Toddst1 (talk) 23:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Godspy.gif)
Thanks for uploading Image:Godspy.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Communist terrorism
I have nominated Communist terrorism, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Communist terrorism&. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Guy (Help!) 17:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Ronald J. Rychlak
A tag has been placed on Ronald J. Rychlak requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must include on the external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later." You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the 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. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Catholicism as Ideology
Why don't you motivate your changes, that is not your private page. Mamioletto

Francisco Franco
First, I like your edit regarding Opus Dei and the Franco administration. From what I've read, technocrats with ties to Opus Dei replaced the Fascist ideologues in Franco's administration and helped set Spain on course for the Spanish miracle and other improvements. I didn't intend for the previous version to portray Opus Dei negatively--and I don't think it did--but the version fleshes out Opus Dei's contributions better.

I made an edit removing the "Despite popular misconceptions Franco was not a Fascist" (paraphrase) part of your edit. I think this is POV and your citation just says that Franco was not a "core fascist," so the citation doesn't even support such a strong statement. The definition of fascism is pretty fungible, but the Wikipedia entry mentions a few core elements to fascism including nationalism and militarism. Franco was definitely a nationalist and a militarist, so he would meet this definition of Fascist. Franco also put himself in charge of the fascist Falange, used Fascist symbols (including the Nazi/Fascist salute), and allied himself with Nazis and Italian Fascists. That said, most accounts say that Franco avoided ideology and was more focused on getting and maintaining power rather than attaining an ideological goal. I think that Franco's relation to fascism is a complex issue and the current article does a decent of reflecting this. If you disagree, I think we should start a discussion on the article's talk page.--Bkwillwm (talk) 01:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Ronald J. Rychlak
A tag has been placed on Ronald J. Rychlak requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must include on the external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later." You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the 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. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 19:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The "Publications" section is a direct copy-and-paste. Not allowed. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 19:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * If that section were simply a listing that used the data from that page as a source, but there would be no issues here. But since it was obviously a direct copy and paste complete with formatting and external links in the same places, and because there was an explicit copyright notice on that particular page, it's a copyvio. With the list deleted (or even condensed - the list was quite lengthy, moreso than it needed to be), the copyvio issue is gone and all is well. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 22:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Fascism
Please do not rewrite the first few paragraphs of the Fascism entry without first seeking consensus on the talk page. Thanks.--Cberlet (talk) 17:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

lisence???
Hi.I am a member of the greek wikipedia and i want to ask you if i can use in the greek article about spanish civil war the foto where leftists shot the statue of Christ,because the lisence icon confused me.Pavlos1988 (talk) 10:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

genocides in history
Please add your comment you placed in the history of genocides in history to Talk:Philippine-American_War, because to date Jagdfeld does not agree. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP
Mamlujo, WP:BLP is taken very seriously here. If you insert this poorly sourced claim regarding Cornwell again, blocking will follow, rest assured. Jayjg (talk) 00:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)