User talk:Maniwar/Archive 2

Template Question
I want to be able to do this. If you look at the physics template at Talk:Albert_Einstein you will note that the code is making it small. Well I did the same thing here for the Caribbean template at Talk:Wintley Phipps to and as you can see it's not working. What can I do to have it show up small like the physics one? I've searched and can't seem to find or figure it out. Maniwar (talk) 14:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The physics template has a small option, whereas the WikiProject Caribbean template doesn't. The WikiProject templates aren't all identical, and different templates have different options. The only way to get a small option would be for someone to program one into the template; you might want to contact one of the users who programmed it originally (follow the link I've given you and check its history). --ais523 14:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You're awesome!!! Thanks!!! --Maniwar (talk) 14:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:NoCover.jpeg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:NoCover.jpeg, has been listed at. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Alex valavanis 11:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I have nominated this image for deletion as there is already a PNG image in use on many thousands of pages and is part of the standard template for WP:ALBUM. Thanks for contributing to the project and I hope you understand my decision. Alex valavanis 11:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Go for it, I'll support it. --Maniwar (talk) 04:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject CCM
I've done a lot of work on updating the WikiProject Contemporary Christian music page, making it more user friendly as well as adding whole sections to the page so that we can better collaborate on improving articles under the scope of the project. Please swing on by and take a look! -- Pepsi2786 09:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:CCM Collaboration


Hi, quick message from WikiProject: Contemporary Christian music!

We are currently in the nomination and voting stage for our first project-wide collaboration. Please stop by and nominate which article you believe we should focus on for the period of February 12-25, 2007. We look forward to your involvement! -- Pepsi2786 00:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Radar-2 Neal-Boortz.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Radar-2 Neal-Boortz.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 23:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Seventh-day Adventist Church - intro
Hi Maniwar. I would just like to discuss your recent changes to the SDA article introduction. I respect and welcome your wish to improve the article. However, I have some concerns with the material, and would like to explain why I don't think it is necessary.

The following statements lack NPOV, taking into account the view of many Christians and people from non-Adventist religions:
 * "the Sabbath of the Old Testament is still relevant today and is God's true Sabbath"
 * "Seventh-day Adventist beleifs are based solely on scripture

This quote from the SDA website is not appropriate in a formal encyclopedia setting, and also has questionable NPOV status:
 * ""Scripture is a road map. The Bible is God's voice, speaking His love personally to you today.""

The changes also introduce unnecessary repetition, for instance:
 * "the literal, visible Second Coming of Christ is close at hand" vs. "anticipate the imminent return of Jesus Christ"
 * "Seventh-day Adventists also share many of the basic beliefs held by other Protestant Christians" vs. "the Seventh-day Adventist church is closely aligned to Protestantism. Its theology is Protestant in character"

The following sentence can be incorporated into the body of the article, and is unnecessary in the introduction.
 * "such as the authority of the Old and New Testaments, human choice, Christ is the only way to gain salvation, communion, and baptism"

In my opinion, the intro as it previously stood already contained a very accurate and concise summary of the main points of the article. If you have any questions, please feel free to leave a message on my talk page. Thanks. Tonicthebrown 04:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you have some valid points on the redundancy and it is worth exploring. What I was trying to do was WP:LEAD where the intro is supposed to summarize the document. However, there are other points I disagree with. I'll take them point by point. When you discuss a belief, it is not POV to state what the belief is. Go and take a look at the Latter day saints page, or the Baptish Church page, or any other religious page. When you are describing their belief, it is not POV to state what they believe. Also, I placed links, which is very appropriate when backing up a fact, to support those statements. It is fact and it is true that the Seventh-day Adventist Church believes that Saturday is relevant today and that it is still the true Sabbath. That is irrefutable. The quote is a support and many other articles use similar format. I actually went around looking at various documents (i.e. latter day saints, Albert Einstein, George W. Bush, Al Gore, Cindy Sheehan, to name a few) to get an idea of how to do a good lead. I also went and read the WP:LEAD  to see what Wikipedia had to say about it. Having said that, I come very close to what wikipedia wishes. The others should be incorporated into the main article, but to leave them there is appropriate because remember, we are trying to summarize the article in the lead. Lastly, I did make a comment on the talk page asking for feedback. If you look at the articles that have received Featured Article status, many of them follow what I have just done. Hope that answers your questions. --Maniwar (talk) 04:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for responding, Maniwar. I apologise for jumping in and reverting your edit without first discussing with you. While I do understand and respect your intentions, I do still think that there can be some NPOV improvements. What I will do is try and edit the intro to incorporate your additions while maintaining the original flow and NPOV of the text. I will also remove the repetition, if you don't mind. Let me know what you think of the outcome. Tonicthebrown 05:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Because I can see that you are very insistent on keeping your changes, I will leave them there for now despite my opinion that there are NPOV concerns, and await further comment from other editors. I would also ask that we all attempt to continue in as civil a manner as possible in relation to the critical websites controversy, as I can see that this is an issue which inflames a great deal of emotion in E.Shubee, 1christian as well as yourself. Thank you friend. Tonicthebrown 06:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I honestly see that you keep missing it. If you look closely, you will note that many of your changes and suggestions were kept. The Lead needs to be a summary of the article and express the beliefs. Saturday is not the the core belief, the second coming is. I moved it up the article because after all, that is what the religion was founded upon..1844 and the great disappointment! Saturday is but a secondary belief. Also, I moved up the sola scriptura, which is a core tenet of protestantism, and thus belongs near the beginning, not near the bottom. You were correct on the redundancy issue and as pointed out, that was valid. You are totally misreading and misjudging. Again, I am following wikipedia, which many editors do not follow. Again, if you take the time to learn wikipedia's policy, you will see that that is what I'm passionate about. Your edits were an improvement,however there were some things left out in which I added or tweaked or moved up. Again, to cite sources is part of wikipedia's foundation and when you removed them, that actually became POV. The lead is rather NPOV because it is citing the beliefs of the religion. Let's make a better article, let's work on learning wikipedia's policies, and let's move beyond this misreading and misunderstanding. Cheers! --Maniwar (talk) 14:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Helping out with the Unassessed Wikipedia Biographies
Seeing that you are an active member of the WikiBiography Project, I was wondering if you would help lend a hand in helping us clear out the amount of [unassessed articles] tagged with. Many of them are of stub and start class, but a few are of B or A caliber. Getting a simple assessment rating can help us start moving many of these biographies to a higher quality article. Thank you! --Ozgod 21:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject Biography March 2007 Newsletter
The March 2007 issue of the Biography WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Mocko13 22:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Ellen G. White
Greetings! I had a question about an edit you recently reverted. Please feel free to respond at Talk:Ellen G. White. Slainte! -- SwissCelt 05:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

re Articles for deletion/Dannielynn Marshall Stern
I think that it was an unusual close, in that only a couple of commentors had suggested the rename. However, I do not think it should remain open (via relisting). My personal opinion is, generally, that AfD has enough burden, and relisting articles should be avoided when possible. I personally relist only when there are only two or three votes, not enough to gauge a consensus.

That's not the case here. Although numbers matter, it is also strength of argument we are looking for, and basically all the arguments have been made; it's not likely that relisting would generate significantly new directions of argument.

I grant that maybe there was no consensus. Perhaps it should have been closed as NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE rather than KEEP - although in practice that amounts to much the same thing.

Based on the discussion, I'd say there's no way this could be a straight-out delete - this is obviously a notable and verifiable situation. The merge-and-redirect folks made a strong argument, e.g. other celebrity's kids have been treated this way etc. But I thought that the case was made that this situation is notable enough to have its own article.

That's my take on it, and I certainly could be wrong; you certainly have a reasonable case for taking it to WP:DRV

If the rename is an issue... I don't know if that was right, or not. So certainly a WP:DRV could well be in order. Or (and this is OK by me) you could just treat the rename as a separate issue from the keep, and just move it back to the old name (preferably with a note on the talk page), or even take it to requested moves if you think this would be controversial. Herostratus 16:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Boortz
"Firing the Surgeon General" -- hilarious! I think I'll start using that. :) --Otheus 16:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You have to thank good ole Neal for that one. Yeah, he has a bunch of them that will make you laugh. --User: (talk) 18:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Paul Harvey
I am in receipt of your recent message concerning the Paul Harvey page. After careful analysis, I have determined that your comments are without merit. (unsigned by User:76.19.57.107
 * Next time please sign your name. --User: (talk) 14:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Infobox for Seventh-day Adventist Church
Hi Maniwar,

If I remember correctly, you did some very nice work creating infoboxes for various Adventist figures. I have suggested on the talk page of the Seventh-day Adventist Church article that we create a userbox. What do you think? Please see my comment there and reply there. Thanks for your time,

Colin MacLaurin 14:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism?
I fail to see how my additions to the Davelewis user profile was vandalism? The statements were factually correct. Please can you clarify what was wrong with them? Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.20.129.136 (talk) 09:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

Fly
Hi,

I created the entry for Fly (exercise) and thought you might be interested in looking it over, based on your past contributions. I'm not even sure it makes sense.

WLU 15:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I did some minor tweaking, but don't know enough about it to do anymore. The grammar might read a slight bit better, but again, I don't know enough. I understood it pretty clear though. --User: (talk) 18:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

If it makes sense to you, and you don't know enough to add more, then it is probably readable to the average reader. Thanks for the review. WLU

African American
In African American there was a statement that "It is a pseudoscience" without any antecedent to indicate what "It" referred to. Please feel free to restore the statement if you have context to clarify it, because there are indeed many ideas related to race which are pseudoscience, but I couldn't tell which of them you were referring to at the time. --Metropolitan90 02:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tip...I'll jump on it. --User: (talk) 02:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

amazing facts
I was responding to vandalism. The article was changed which deleted some of the previous content. What I added was helpful and true. In fact the previous article had been rather carefully done and I assume an adventist didn't like it and changed it. If your pov is offended that it to bad, but amazing facts does target Catholicism and that should be noted. I will make a minimalist notation of that fact.(unsigned by 70.108.49.31)

Maniwar, I realize you are an sda. Your POV is rather blatent. If you have a problem then debate it before you revert an article. (unsigned by 70.108.49.31)
 * Assume all you want, but before you put any information in an article, be ready to back it up. If it is placed in the article again, it will be reverted as vandalism and you will receive a warning. So rather than assume, follow policy, as I have pointed out several times. An please sign your posts from now on. --User: (talk) 02:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't have to assume, I know. Let's say that I "prove" it by showing they believe the Catholic Church is the whore of babylon. You will say, "but that's true" and not see it as anti-Catholic. That's because it's YOUR POV. That's the problem with POV, those who have it don't see it. Most sda's don't see anything wrong with amazing facts. Herein lies the problem, most other people do. It is not vandalism to mention that a group is accused of bias. I am sure the KKK can be fairly accused of being biased against black people. So I can back it up and not just from personal experience, although I have had that. But the question is: if I do what will you do? I will hazard a guess. You will keep erasing it and try to knock me off wikipedia. Your justification will be that as an sda you must protect your group no matter what. I am right aren't I? Your actions actually reinforce what I have seen from amazing facts. Nemesis

Here you go: From the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights: 5/31/94

Frederick, MD – Joe Crews, on a Seventh Day Adventist program, "Amazing Facts," telecast from Frederick, Maryland, preached that the Pope is the Anti-Christ, number 666, etc.. The program is regularly broadcast on over 100 stations nationwide.

June 2 In its newsletter, the Amazing Facts ministries, a part of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, accused the Catholic Church of doctrinal error and submission to papal authority. Of the funeral of Pope John Paul II, it said "It was very clear to anyone watching these events that all the world looks to the papacy as one of the planet's most powerful political and spiritual forces." The author claimed that he "kept hearing [an] echo of Revelation 13:3, 'And all the world wondered after the beast.'"

From the Catholic Civil Rights League in Canada:

Active CCRL members Patrick Hanlon and Caroline Barron recently succeeded in having anti-Catholic programming removed from Vision TV (Canada’s multi-faith religious network). In June they wrote to Vision TV president Bill Roberts about a program called “Amazing Facts.” This show propagated the absurd anti-Catholic accusations that the Catholic Church is the “Whore of Babylon” spoken of in the Book of Revelations, and that the Pope is the anti-Christ.

Here is from the amazing "facts" website: "When Satan failed to destroy the church by violence, he resorted to a new strategy – he would join the church himself, and corrupt it from within. This prove to be a far more successful plan. By the fourth century A.D. the Roman Empire had invested the growing church with its own wealth and a large degree of political power, thinking to extend its own domain. Unfortunately for the world, this blend of religious and temporal power was an intoxicating mix that forever changed those who tasted it. No longer the meek and harmless body of Christ, the church devoured the hand that fed her, and in 538 A.D. Emperor Justinian decreed that the Roman Church now ruled the world. Henceforth, its reign would be known as the "Holy Roman Empire." The world staggered under the oppression of the Roman Church during the dark ages that followed. In her thirst for ever greater power and domination, she absorbed all other religions into herself and adulterated the pure doctrine of Christ with an amalgam of superstitions and heresies."

You might agree with them, which would make you an ignorant bigot, but I think this is sufficient to prove they don't like Catholicism very much and that it is fair to note that in the article. (unsigned by 70.108.49.31)
 * If you want to discuss this, there are a few things that must take place. 1) You must sign your name to your posts. 2) You must not attack me, or you will be banned. 3) Leave your POV out of it and cite sources to back up your statement(s). Rantings only show your POV stance and how you are stubborn and refuse to follow protocol. I see that you refuse to follow wikipedia thus far, which makes you more of a nuisance than a contributor. To have anyone consider that you have any sense or seriousness or concern, learn to follow wikipedia policy. --User: (talk) 13:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I posted this on the Amazing Facts talk page. It appears to me that Maniwar is likewise guilty of POV. The poster has provided evidence to back up his claim. It looks like Maniwar is hiding behind protocol to avoid the relevant issue. I think the article should state that Amazing Facts is accused of bias against the Catholic Church and other Churches. That seems reasonable. What say you Maniwar? John —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.242.180.140 (talk • contribs)
 * If anyone wishes to discuss this, please do so at Talk:Amazing Facts to keep consistency and everything in one location. --User: (talk) 21:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear Maniwar, I do not think that the results are "inconclusive." The opposite actually. The original editor seems to have a point and I fail to see the problem with having a controversies section in the article. Is there a reason you are so fiercely protective of the article?64.21.238.49 16:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not have a problem with it, and if you refer to the talk page, as mentioned above, you will see the history and discussion which clearly answers your questions and explains why. Kind Regards! --User: (talk) 17:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid I don't understand. My reading is that four people, including myself, believe there should be a controversy section. You are the only one who disagrees. A seperate section on controversies should satisfy everyone. There would be an opportunity to rebut in the section. Other articles do this. I think this would be a good compromise.64.21.238.30 18:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not trying to be rude, but please move this discussion to the talk page of the article. Also, per my earlier comment, read the talk page (on the articles talk page) to see the history of the discussion, it will answer all your questions. Hope that helps! Kind regards. --User: (talk) 00:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind using the talk page, but you don't respond there. If dialogue is to take place it cannot take place with just myself. If you will respond on the talk page then we can take the dialogue there.64.21.238.49 16:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if you're reading the talk page, but the disputed issue has been removed by numerous editors over the past year and a half. The supposed charge is not sourced, and it has been loaded. The three editors you refer to are in violation of WP:COI and therefore it does not warrant the entry be entered. Additionally, by consensus, see the talk page of the entire history of the discussion, staring well before I reverted it, by consensus has been removed because it voilates numerous policies on wikipedia. I don't want to rehash the entire conversation, so please take the time to read the entire talk page (including the history) to see how the final decision came about. The inclusion is not the issue, but lack of following policies. Please read the articles talk page, and ask any further questions on there. Lastly, I would encourage you to register with Wikipedia. Cheers! --User: (talk) 17:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Suspect that two users are the same person
I suspect that user:136.242.180.140 and user:70.108.49.31 are the same person. They both only seem interested in the same articles and the same issues. Is there somewhere I can report this to have it checked? --User: (talk) 20:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Checkuser.  Real96  20:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you!!! --User: (talk) 20:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)