User talk:Mamalujo/Archive 7

Fabian Bruskewitz
Thanks for the headsup. Can you point me to the relevant policy? Thanks, DavidOaks (talk) 18:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

State atheism vs Secular State
Would the lead paragraph from Separation of church and state be useful to add to the article on state atheism? It does seem to be cited and denotes a difference. Alastairward (talk) 21:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I've complained about synthesis in other articles enough to have probably known better. Thanks for taking the time to talk about it though. Alastairward (talk) 19:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

October 2009
Please do not add content without citing verifiable and reliable sources. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. ► RATEL ◄ 00:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Aktion T4 and euthanasia

 * Of course there are sources, even "reliable" sources according to Wikipedia policies, like for example: Alexander Leo, Medical science under dictatorship, New England Journal of Medicine, 1949, No.241, pages 39-47, which clearly state that Aktion T4 was euthanasia and any euthanasia is not unlike Aktion T4 ...

190.25.102.101 (talk) 23:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Communist terrorism
You should not notify selected editors of a discussion. Please see WP:Canvass. The Four Deuces (talk) 02:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * RE: I made a few comments about this, but my time is very limited.Biophys (talk) 15:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I saw you voting. Please pay attention that none of the people involved (except may be one of them) actually care about terrorism or communism-related subjects. If they did, they would be busy with creating articles on such subjects, as some users from India do. All they care about is me and a couple of other guys they do not like for whatever reason. This is an artificially created battleground. Hence the complaints about Sade at AE and a recent request from one of them about EEML case to Arbcom (all complaints are about communism and terrorism subjects). Stay away of them, and I am going to stay away too, as far as possible Biophys (talk) 05:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for your very good and studied comment on the Saint Augustine page re the term "Catholic". The Article page still is so bleak, and I am still getting comments that I use "The Catholic Encyclopaedia, 1930", and so must be biased or naive! I up-hold the entry in the Conversion paragraph of "...to Christanity" as the coverage is so bleak here. You can see my comments on the talk page, where I commented that there is no coverage on predestination.

I do find the Editor: "OIEnglish" to be very helpful and gets results! He on a break at moment.

MacOfJesus (talk) 16:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

State atheism
With regard to our small conflict over See also in State atheism. Why do you believe that there is any connection between atheism and genocides and terrorism in Communist countries? (Igny (talk) 17:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC))

Vendee
Please note the WP:3RR restriction for this article. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Anticlericalism and Freemasonry
I have no objections to collaboration... that is at the heart of Wikipedia. However, the article is currently so fundamentally flawed that it needs to be taken back to a stub before any collaboration can begin. I posted a section by section annalysis outlining the problems, and got no reply. Now, I suppose it is possible that my annalysis was too much for other editors to take in one gulp, so I am slowing down... and will re-post each section seperately (giving time for replies before I move on to the next section). Perhaps when we have addressed the problems with the current version of the article we can work on creating a different one. Blueboar (talk) 23:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring
Both you and Sayerslle need to stop edit-warring at Catholic Church. Tom Harrison Talk 01:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ditto at Bosco. You've done three reverts.moreno oso (talk) 20:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:19, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Atrocities
Hi, I just wanted to suggest you to have a look at this discussion. Skippy le Grand Gourou (talk) 09:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

AfD
Please see: Articles for deletion/Islamic terrorism, Jewish religious terrorism and Christian terrorism included in AfD.Steve Dufour (talk) 23:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

state atheism
My sources do contradict it. Your source is dated 1998 while mine are from 2005-2010. --Userofsite1 (talk) 02:23, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Article needing work
Greetings Mamalujo - You might like to check out an article I came across today that needs work: Andrew Morrison. --Technopat (talk) 16:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Cristero War
You completely deleted the section on government secular teachers being attacked and even murdered by bands affiliated with the Cristeros, on the grounds that the cited references were in Spanish. Are you going to delete the section on Cristero saints, which has no references? IAC-62 (talk) 14:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Answering your question.
Answering your question. Benito Juarez was Freemason, I think he hold the highest grade. In any case whatever people could tell you, even nowadays some Freemasons keep doing open provocations to the Catholic Church in Mexico. There are few churches that I really love in Mexico: The Expiatory Temple in Guadalajara, Immaculate Concepcion Church in Hidalgo , and few others. You can find a plaque commemorating Benito Juarez just at the corner of Immaculate Conception Church, for he created the state of Hidalgo, and so Freemasons keep placing wreaths with the freemasonry symbols in this church (and others) on Benito Juarez birthday. I do not have a close picture with myself, but I can get one. --189.217.237.6 (talk) 02:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:House of the people.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:House of the people.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 15:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I tagged it for deletion because of the lack of a decent rationale, but, to answer your question, it's not at all clear why the image is needed, so, at first glance, I'd say that probably none of the usages are justified. That's the point of a rationale- to explain why an image is justified. J Milburn (talk) 21:57, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

why are you
Why are you removing the Mary Vincent quotes from the article on the terror rojo article you assembled. why did you call Simone Weil one of stalin's useful idiots? And Orwell?? How well informed are you to say such a moronic thing. do you seriously believe you are displaying NPOV. don't you care even a tiny tiny bit about the integrity of the project. Sayerslle (talk) 19:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

a verbatim quote is not a copyright issue in and of itself
While use of verbatim quotes, instead of parphrasing, does need quotation marks, but they are not a copyright issues. It would be plagerism. It would be unethical to pass a work of as our own, even if it is in the public domain, but a work in the public domain can be used for the purpose of profit, etc.  şṗøʀĸ şṗøʀĸ:  τᴀʟĸ 01:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Maria Esperanza de Bianchini
The DYK project (nominate) 12:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

James Joyce
Hello. I saw your addition to James Joyce, which brought to mind this book:   It also has deals with the subject of Joyce and religion, and you may find it useful. (In a less productive vein, this discussion—on categories, of all things—also may be of interest.) Back to your edit—would the material not be placed better elsewhere in the article, perhaps toward the end? The article needs a better appraisal section, and the beginning has a chronologic organization, in which your contribution seems out of place, at least in a temporal sense. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 20:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. I see that you did use the book-- sorry I didn't notice it before.  (I read your additions on a phone, which is very cumbersome, and therefore only looked at the "diff" and not references.)
 * The talk page for the Joyce article contains a discussion from a year ago on additional changes needed for the article. Unfortunately I did not follow up on it.  It seems that a critical appraisal section, dealing with issues such as religion, critical reception, etc. is indicated, but it would take several dedicated editors, I think, to do that.
 * On the specific question of his religion: As you know, there is a dispute as to what extent he was, or remained, "Catholic" (and in part the answer may depend on how that latter term is used).  I suspect Joyce would have enjoyed the controversy.  Regards,  Kablammo (talk) 13:45, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't blank the religious section of the 2010 Copiapó mining accident
Your post on the talk page makes it appear that I blanked the section. I just want it to be clear if you were under that impression, that I didn't delete the section under discussion on the 2010 Copiapó mining accident article. Veriss (talk) 01:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I replied to your post on my page. Cheers! Veriss (talk) 01:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

spanish civil War
look at the state you've left the article in, read the section on the second republic, it doesn't make sense, youve got a sentence saying ' the mob violence on the churches was perpetrated by nearly all catholics..' etc. you are a joke. Sayerslle (talk) 22:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Page change in ref broke named references
Your recent change to the Separation of church and state article seems to have broken other references to that ref name. Ie you've changed the name of the reference where the reference is defined, but not changed other places where it is used - so the other references are to a name that doesn't exist. Could you please, either: which ever is appropriate. Thanks Mitch Ames (talk) 12:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Update the other references to use the new name, or
 * 2) Create a new reference name (...p111) for the other references,


 * Are you likely to fix this, or shall I move the request to Talk:Separation of church and state to see if someone else can? Mitch Ames (talk) 00:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not real good at that sort of thing, but I'll give it a shot. I would just revert to the previous edit, but the page cites in the citations to one source are to the wrong pages. Mamalujo (talk) 21:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I've copied your message of 21:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC) from my talk page to yours. It's easier if we keep the conversation on one page - normally that would be the one on which the discussion started. Mitch Ames (talk) 02:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * If you can at least put the reference details including page numbers in the article, ideally inside ref tags (no need to worry about reference names if you have trouble with them), but even if it's in the article body text (eg just as plain text in brackets) - as long as the information is there, I or somebody else can fix up the formatting later. Mitch Ames (talk) 02:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:CANVASS
Taking into account that the position of the editor you posted to is highly predictable, your last post is inappropriate canvassing. In future please refrain from such steps. Regards,--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Objection: As I have had a limited amount of time at my disposal I had been unaware of the proposals presented on the other page. It was perfectly proper and fair for Mamalujo to remind me. My "highly predictable" position is irrelevant to this given that the position of editors like yourself is no less "highly predictable". Justus Maximus (talk) 14:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Re 'communist terrorism' edit summary
In your edit recent summary, you wrote that '"Ungrammatical, tendentious and unencyclopedic" is not a valid reason to blank sourced material. It can stay while we talk'. Can I take it from this that you intend to participate in the ongoing discussion over the article? As it stands, there is clearly no consensus whatsoever that the section as reintroduced by you is acceptable according to Wikipedia standards of sourcing and neutrality. Frankly, I fail to see why anyone would wish to see such an obviously skewed section in the article anyway - it discredits the remainder, which is at least beginning to take on a more balanced perspective.

I am slightly more optimistic than I have been in the past over the possibility of reaching some sort of compromise over the article, but this will require discussion, rather than endless cycles of reverts. How about trying to play a part in this? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:21, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: Reminder
Please see my response on my user talkpage. Regards Justus Maximus (talk) 14:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Good job on Jack Kerouac‎
 Hello Mamalujo, Viriditas has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.


 * You did some good work on the Kerouac page but this is not a neutral, encyclopedic edit. Please remember to heed the NPOV. Viriditas (talk) 08:01, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I've neutralized the list article and commented on my talk page and on the list page. Any comments regarding the current, neutral list entry should be made on that talk page.  I've also started a discussion on the Kerouac talk page about recent edits.  In case you haven't already read it, please familiarize yourself with WP:NPOV. Viriditas (talk) 03:25, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Sapnish Civil War
I tried to stop the attacks of user Xufanc, warning him on his bad behavior in Talk:Spanish Civil War (WP:NPOV, WP:VAND, WP:NPA, WP:CIV), without success. Even he blanked a comment in his talk page diff. Now he's saying that we are francoists trying to be the Caudillo's censors... It makes no sense!

173.208.45.178 (talk) 10:14, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

List of Catholic authors
Hi, Mamalujo. Your addition of extended comments to the listing for Kerouac is WP:UNDUE weight as well of dubious WP:NPOV status. The long standing mention of his flirtation with buddhism is neutral and those who are interested can visit his page where this is relevant. It is not relevant on a mere list. I am formally warning you not to violate WP:3RR. The big red triangle is ugly, so please don't take this as hostility on my part. I am warning Viriditas of the same thing. μηδείς (talk) 04:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

Bosco's influence
Hi! I notice in your edit summary that you said that the content was "junk"

Why not explain in your edit summary why it was junk? Inadequate edit summaries may mean that another editor will revert you, believing that the edit was inadequately justified. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:54, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Communist terrorism for deletion
A discussion has begun about whether the article Communist terrorism, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Communist terrorism until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. jps (talk) 18:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Notice
The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose, at their own discretion, sanctions on any editor working on pages broadly related to Eastern Europe if the editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. These pages have been defined by the Arbitration Committee to include Communist terrorism. If you continue with your behavior on Communist terrorism, in particular this edit summary, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. The committee's full decision can be read at Requests for arbitration/Digwuren. Thank you, --Mkativerata (talk) 20:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

License tagging for File:MonstranceGuad.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:MonstranceGuad.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 04:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Crisis pregnancy center
You just removed a statement backed by 13 sources, most of which were neutral journalists. I'm going to ask you to revert your change right now. Dylan Flaherty  20:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Roscelese reverted it before you had a chance, but I just want to make sure you understand why it needed reversion. Do you? Dylan Flaherty  22:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

December 2010
Hi there, Mamalujo! You recently removed a statement from Crisis pregnancy center cited to thirteen different sources, ten of which were news organizations. Please adhere to WP:NPOV and WP:RS, and remember that reporting due-weight reliably sourced content about a subject is not indicative of bias against the subject just because that content is unfavorable.

You also have repeatedly removed a paragraph from Manhattan Declaration: A Call of Christian Conscience which was cited to the relevant sources. I'm assuming that this stems from a misunderstanding of WP:ABOUTSELF - the policy states (emphasis mine) "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities...so long as: ... 2. it does not involve claims about third parties." You'll note that the policy is "usually," not "only." These organizations' websites could certainly also be cited in the articles about them, but in the Manhattan Declaration article, they are still being cited to support a fact about the organizations - ie. "HRC has made this statement." Likewise, articles all over Wikipedia would have to be overhauled if attributed criticism were designated as "claims about a third party." A claim about a third party would be if we stated, as fact, that the Manhattan Declaration creators made it in the hope of discriminating with taxpayer dollars, with only the HRC press release as a source. But "HRC says this about the Manhattan Declaration" is a statement about HRC.

You're welcome to take the issue to the reliable sources noticeboard if you think it's me who's misinterpreting the policy, but if you're going to do that, I suggest you also remove the quote from the Declaration, as it makes non-expert claims about Martin Luther King's Letter from Birmingham Jail. That way, it wouldn't look as though you were only trying to remove content critical of the Declaration. I'm sure you wouldn't want that.

Removing warnings from your talk page is also traditionally frowned upon.

Have a nice day! -- Roscelese (talk) 22:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Your repeated deletions at John Bosco
Your repeated deletions of the same material at John Bosco is, frankly, getting out of hand. When you find your edits being reverted again and again by various others, then it is time for you to build consensus on the talk page. If you cannot agree with seeking consensus and working toward it, then perhaps Wikipedia is not the project for you. --Nat Gertler (talk) 07:47, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * NatGertler, I respect your opinions and your work but I do think you're being a bit unfair as Mamalujo has shown with extensive contributions that Wikipedia is a perfectly suitable project for them.


 * It is as at least as legitimate to remove the material as it is to repeatedly restore it since there is no consensus that it be included. I would maintain that if you believe this is worthy material for the article then the burden of proof is on you. Your sources are weak, self-referencing, and lack real academic credibility. Any graduate student presenting a paper on this subject citing only these sources would be poorly marked and referred to a historical methods class.


 * Further, even if the quote is credible and verifiable, which, again it seems is not the case, it bears no notability. Its inclusion is insidious, having previously been a part of a campaign to promote the inflammatory and unsupportable libel that Bosco was a pederast. I call for removal and will await proposition for the establishment of consensus in either direction or will soon join Mamalujo's efforts at "repeated deletions" Uspastpresentwatch2010 (talk) 02:01, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Crisis pregnancy center
Mamalujo, thank you so much for your new participation on this article. There's a lot of work to be done in terms of crunching numbers and analyzing documents, so we're always glad to have more participants.

I did notice that you placed some tags on the article but didn't visit the talk page. This is something of an issue because WP:NPOVD states that "the editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies". Otherwise, the tagging is considered to be drive-by and is likely to be reversed.

Now, I realize that this is a complex article with a long history, so you might not have considered what you're getting into. You certainly have the option to revert your change and back away slowly from us crazies. However, if you're ready to list the specific issues you have and defend your alternatives, you are entirely welcome to join us. Dylan Flaherty  21:04, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

December 2010
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Manhattan Declaration: A Call of Christian Conscience, you may be blocked from editing. Roscelese (talk) 21:07, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:ColesPublicHouse.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:ColesPublicHouse.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log].

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Zeitgeist: The Movie
Hi. Regarding your revert, while the Jesus Myth is not accepted by most scholars, how is it a conspiracy theory? Those other theories mentioned certainly are, but the Jesus Myth, while a fringe view among scholars, and possibly wrong, does not, as far as I know, incorporate any conspiracies. An editor brought this up on that article's talk page, and I changed the passage because of this. We can discuss this here or on that "talk page", but I don't see why it was necessary to say "nice try" in your edit summary, as if I was somehow doing something wrong. Nightscream (talk) 05:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

January 2011
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Juan Diego. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording, and content that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Dougweller (talk) 19:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
 * 2) Editors violating the rule will usually be blocked for 24 hours for a first incident.
 * 3) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Please do as asked and join in on the discussions taking place on the same issue on other talk pages. You asked for a discussion but are now ignoring it. Dougweller (talk) 19:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)