User talk:Pseudo-Richard/Archives/2010



I like to keep both sides of my discussions together, so if you leave me a message here, I will reply here. If I left a question on your talk page, please reply there; I'm watching your page so I will get back to you as soon as possible.

If you leave me a message here but do not plan to watch this page for my reply, please say so as I do not normally copy my replies to other Talk Pages.

Thanks!

Happy New Year, Merry Christmas
Richard, I hope you new year is happy and your Christmas was merry! Thanks for your kind Christmas present posted on my page. Nancy Heise  ''' talk 07:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Why delete without notice?
It is my understanding that articles are not removed without discussion or notification. The flag itself assures this. It has been less than 24 hours since I submitted my first wiki article - and twice in that time I have had my article removed -- without notice, -- without comment on my defense points and -- without opportunity to make edits. (with the exception of one who answered my response back to them - and I thank them)

I am new here. I posted my article to wiki. The first administrator came along and made a minor change to my title. I had modeled my after multiple examples of others in the same industry as posted to wiki - but not really a big concern to me. Happy to learn best practice and perhaps the other 5 articles are not good examples.

I then had a user flag my article for speedy delete.

Very quickly - A second administrator deleted my article. If I'm reading the chain correctly - it was deleted something like less than 10 minutes after flagged. No one notified me. No one gave me the opportunity to make changes or instructions as to where the specific problem was.

Per the "item deleted" page that suggests you work with the other parties involved, I first contacted the user that flagged my article and the administrator who deleted it. The user said his concern was that it sounded to him like advertising and noted on what points. I wrote a very detailed response to him telling why the information he noted was presented as it was, addressing his source concerns, etc.. He has not followed up with me - I assume that means no problem with my response? Or perhaps busy doing other things.

I also forwarded the defense response to the administrator who deleted my file. Before sending the him points of defense (I was still drafting), he did send me a note saying it was an "advertising" concern. He pointed me to a general help page (which I'd already read) and a page where I could retrieve the original version of my article. Combined with the point to the article - and no reply to my defense - I took this to mean Go again with it.

I reposted the article - and had another user flag it for advertising - but no specific information. I removed the tag per the box's instruction that I could do so as long as working on resolving the problem. I responded to the flagger in great detail and requested specific feedback. (which was then deleted and marked as too much detail) I replied again in a more brief response. I added the hang on notation.

I am now addressing you because you have deleted my article - without any comment or notice to me. I assure you that I am not being difficult - but am very frustrated with the lack of interaction and guidance I am receiving here. It seems easy to hit a delete - but of little interest to provide anything specific like assistance. Am I wrong to assume administrators are supposed to be a source for information and assistance - wiki mentors if you will. My experience on my first day using wiki has been that administrators shoot first - and don't care in the least about even asking questions later. In fact - they will ignore them.

I do not believe you could have read the contents of the talk page in the period of time lapse between the flag and your delete. I expect that before deleting my article - one would check the talk page and see if the matter is being addressed. This is what the flag box ASSURES me that is wiki policy to do. I have extensive notes on the article sources and answered all questions in a very timely fashion - but I cannot understand why I seem to be the only person following a procedure.

I hope this is simply a matter of catching a couple of administrators on "off" days. I am very frustrated with the lack of administrators following what I understand to be their own policies. Please review my talk page and advise. I also respectfully request that you reinstate my article. I await your response. —Preceding unsigned comment added byFreddie.Bauer (talk • contribs) 07:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Copyright concerns
Hi.

In today's Copyright Problems listing is the article Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People, in which another contributor detected similarity to. I see that the content in question was copied over from Catholic sexual abuse scandal in the United States, but it seems to have originally been placed there by you. I presume you authored that text, unless you imported it without attribution from another article.

This text includes a combination of close paraphrase (addressed in ourcopyright FAQ as well as in that user essay) and direct copying.

For an example of close paraphrasing, you wrote:

The source says:

The structure of these pieces is substantially the same; you have retained some of the creative text ("spate of charges and admissions of sexual abuse by priests and bishops, many of them involving"); in other places, you have made minimal alterations that are insufficient to create a new copyright (adding a few words to "created by the presence of media and victims, especially those from SNAP (Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests)")

Since copyright covers the creative expression of ideas, not facts, we can paraphrase external sources, but we do have to be careful when paraphrasing that we do not too follow the language and structure closely enough to create an unauthorizedderivative work.

The US government that governs us utilizes a "substantial similarity" test intended to determine if infringement exists.Melville Nimmer produced subcategories of "substantial similarity" for which the court search. In the first, they look for "fragmented literal similarity", checking for phrases and passages copied from the original text. Unless such phrases are defensible as fair use, their presence is a strong indicator of infringement. (And, of course, Wikipedia's policy requires that such phrases must always be clearly marked to conform to our non-free content guideline.) In the second, courts look for "comprehensive non-literal similarity." Even if there is no verbatim duplication of the copyrighted original, infringement can be found if the new version follows so closely on the structure of the original that copying is clear. As the US Court of Appeals noted in discussing Artica v. Palmer, et al. (970 F.2d 106, 1992): "A plaintiff succeeds under this doctrine when it shows that the pattern or sequence of the two works is similar."

A close paraphrase of another source may be a derivative work, which is actionable unless it meets the fair use doctrine. The best way to avoid this is to substantially restructure the information you take from external sources in addition to using your own language.

In the next section, you have completely duplicated the creative text used by the authors of that piece to introduce the Bishop's quotations: While the Bishop's words are properly marked, this creative content is not marked as duplicated at all.
 * "In his opening address Bishop Gregory called the current situation"
 * "He confessed the bishops’ guilt"

Our copyright policy requires that we only use non-free content in accordance with WP:NFCC and WP:NFC, which require that all copied content from non-free sources be clearly marked.

Of graver concern, my additional investigation into the tagged article shows that it also duplicates several paragraphs from this 2003 article,, beginning with the words "In the Charter, the bishops pledged to report to the police all allegations of sexual abuse..." I have not closely compared, but there seem to be little or no changes. This material also appears to have been introduced to Wikipedia by you, inthis edit, unless you copied it from another Wikipedia article without attribution.

Compare some of the text you added in that edit with the source:

Source:

This would seem to be a blatant violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy, with which I know you were familiar, not just because you are an administrator but because we talked about them in March 2009 after other concerns had been raised about your text. I also see that you have received notices from CorenSearchBot here and here. Since you did not source your material, I'm not sure if you found it somewhere else indicating it to be copyright free. Can you explain?--Moonriddengirl(talk) 13:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It's probably a copyright violation. Feel free to rewrite it or delete it as you like.  I will try to fix the copyvio when I have time.  Thanks. --Richard S (talk) 15:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

More extensive concerns
I find it very alarming that you would paste multiple paragraphs of a copyrighted source onto Wikipedia within such a short time of having been reminded of copyright policy, and I am very much concerned that there may be more issues with your text.

I see that January 10th, you added the following toCatholic sex abuse cases:

The source says:

and

On January 8, you copied a paragraph from this source. The article said:

The source said:

In that same edit, you brought over with minimal alterations content fromthis source. The article said:

The source said:

Also in that edit, you placed the following:

The source said:

Your changes to this material are minimal.

In this edit, on January 5, you’ve duplicated extensive content fromthis source into a hidden comment. While the text is hidden, we still cannot import it under our copyright policy. Extensive quotation is forbidden by policy, and even if it were not, there’s nothing to even indicate that the material is a quote. Any contributor might remove the formatting and put that into publication, not understanding its purpose.

On more than one occasion, you also seem to have violated the copyright of Wikipedia’s contributors. For one example,this editseems to be an unattributed paste from Sexual abuse scandal in Cloyne diocese of content you did not author. I’m not sure why you didn’t provide the requisite reuse attribution there, since I’ve seen you do it multiple times.

Here you have introduced a quotation without a source, which is a problem under WP:NFC in itself.

I am concerned that this may demonstrate a pattern of ignoring copyright policy, and I am seeking additional input at the administrator’s noticeboard. I will link that conversation once I have placed it.--Moonriddengirl(talk) 16:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I have opened the conversationhere.--Moonriddengirl(talk) 16:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Admin status
Hi. I don't understand your actions, and unless there's a very good reason I'd have to answer your question at my user talk page that yes, I do. If you were not an administrator I would have blocked you with my standard User:Moonriddengirl/cblock template. Obviously, that would be inappropriate here; the purpose of a temporary copyright block is to make sure that contributors know we're serious about copyright and take time to understand the policies. As an administrator, you should already understand those policies and know that they are enforced. If you don't, then you should probably consider resigning and reapplying (if you want) after you are confident of that material. If you do understand them, but copied material anyway, then I certainly though resignation would be appropriate. One of the ways organizations avoid contributory infringement charges is by showing due diligence, and I'm afraid that retaining administrators who violate copyright policy may undermine the Foundation's standing on that.

My biggest question at the moment is what to do to about content already added. We do have a process board for this, at WP:CCI, but with contributors who have been around as long as you have, this requires a major investment of time from those willing to help evaluate and clean. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As a fellow administrator I also feel you should resign. You could redeem yourself partially by doing that but also by helping clean up copyvio. In fact, you could dedicate any time that you put in using your tools in the past to copyvio work.Dougweller (talk) 19:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll chime in as another administrator. I think the fact that you come clean and admit it is good (not that it would be an easy thing to deny), but this is the kind of thing that could seriously harm Wikipedia as a whole and it doesn't look good for someone trusted with the admin role to be doing this. Giving up the tools voluntarily would avoid unnecessary drama and help mitigate matters quite a bit. --  At am a  頭 20:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I see an established pattern of blatant disregard for a core principle of Wikipedia. I see repeated copying, not fixing a copyvio when it is uncovered, and moreover responding with what amounts to "I can't be bothered;  you fix it."  This is unacceptable for any editor, and doubly unacceptable for any admin.  --Una Smith (talk) 21:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Following the discussion at ANI, and reviewing the discussion here, I would suggest that it is possibly best for you - the editor-to resign the admin bit. Chiefly, having this black mark (the copyvio) on your record is going to make your sysopping more difficult, expecially in regard to dealing with editors/vandals. Ultimately, you are going to have this instance thrown back in your face when you warn or sanction editors, or make decisions in your admin capacity in disputes, etc. In this instance, I am not so worried about the trust thing - because trust can be built up again by acting in a commendable manner. The start of that process would be to resign. Under the circumstances you may find that you can regain the bits after a while - yours is not a name that crops up when "unworthy" admins are discussed. In the meanwhile, identifying and removing copyvio as an editor will also work to that end. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

OK... I think I've heard from "enough" users. Here is my request to have my admin privileges removed. --Richard S (talk) 05:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for handling this gracefully. I don't know how the bureaucrats handle this type of situation, but there's any difficulty getting your bit back upon request six months from now then please leave word at my user talk.  If Moonriddengirl confirms that there have been no further problems it would be an honor to renominate you at RFA.  We all make mistakes.  People who take responsibility and correct theirs deserve the community's support.  Durova  401 05:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Please do make sure that you reapply for adminship. That you have voluntarily resigned adminship from here speaks volumes and I would be more than happy to support you if and when you reapply. Please leave a message on my talk page if you do! - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 11:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me also thank you for handling this with commonsense and honor. Dougweller (talk) 12:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Can I also suggest that you actually do include a link to the WP:ANI thread where the issue was discussed on your Steward Request on meta? I realize it's been actioned, but I think that your behaviour on that thread itself positively belongs there for later, beneficial reference. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 12:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

A quick note
Hi. I'm impressed with your efforts on this CCI. I'm afraid I'm going to have to work on it in spurts, because we have multiple others pending that also need attention, but I'll try to help process it as quickly as we can. It may be beneficial to ask for additional assistance from a WikiProject. I typically do this as a matter of routine, but as you are so proactive on it figured I'd ask you first. You know the population who work on these subjects; are they likely to be helpful or will content issues obscure the main purpose?

My main reason for writing you here is to say that I've left a few notes directly on the CCI, in response to yours (not at its talk page). Will that be effective for communicating with you, or would you prefer the CCI talk page?--Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've completed my notes at the CCI on Nanking. Please let me know if you can't address these matters quickly so I can blank the article. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Catholic missions
Thanks for your work so far on Catholic missions. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Copyright cleanup
Richard, I appreciate how careful you have been to annotate your actions in cleaning up these copyright concerns, but one spot check in Nanking Massacre controversy and denial makes me really concerned that this method may not be successful. Take #6 of the problems in Nanking Massacre controversy and denial, which is the first one I decided to spot check. The article still contains the following text (both examples, source first; article): Example one

Example two

This method is only going to work if you aggressively track down all identified issues. I can't spend the several hours necessary on each article rechecking to make sure that you haven't left material behind. Otherwise, I don't see that we have any choice but to excise it aggressively. --Moonriddengirl (talk)19:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The article still retains the following unattributed direct quotation, though you seem to have fixed the other material from#7: "The Nanking Massacre remains a highly controversial episode in Sino-Japanese relations." Thesource says, "The Nanjing Incident remains a highly controversial episode in Sino-Japanese relations." --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Mit Brennender Sorge
Richard, you did a nice job cleaning up Mit Brennender Sorge. I think it is much more NPOV and comprehensive than its ever been. I'm still not happy with Catholic Church as I've expressed on the article talk page. I think that it fails to tell Reader the good things about the Church in history and in cultural influence. The origins section gives reader the perfect view of scholarly opinions that also need to be represented in the Inquisitions, crusades, WWII, and sexual abuse sections of the article. These are notable controversies for which scholars have varying points of view and need to be summarized on the page for it to meet FA standards  Nancy Heise    talk  16:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Lurking appreciation
I wanted to acknowledge your civility and levelheadedness on the cesspool that used to be Talk:Catholic Church over the past few months. Contrasted to the snarkiness and personalizing of otherwise very fine editors (e.g., NH, K, and X), your behavior there is to be commended. Thanks, and keep up the good work. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Mexico
I agree with your removal of the sentence from the lead. Too many misleading statements are made on that article on flimsy sources.Bambuway (talk) 18:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

History of Liberia
Hi. This CCI has come back up in my rotation again, and I've checked to see if you completed the cleanup of History of Liberia, as I finished annotating problems with it on January 27th. I see you have noted some cleanup, but there is significant material that does not seem to have been addressed. For example, content from is still present in South Atlantic air ferry route in World War II, to which it migrated after you placed it in History of Liberia. Please come to the CCI to annotate what steps you are or have taking to clean this content. To make it easier for you to see, I have separated out that material where you have indicated action from those items that await your attention/response. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This copyright cleanup method is not working. I will have to go with the usual approach of blanking articles wherein problematic material is found or aggressively reverting. It has been more than a month since you were notified of the problems with the material you placed in History of Liberia, and there are still 38 items which contain no response from you. I spot-checked one at one at random and found the following content still in the article Samuel Doe:
 * Doe closed the Libyan mission in Monrovia and reduced the staff of the Soviet Embassy. He also reestablished diplomatic relations with Israel.
 * This material clearly replicates content from : "He closed the Libyan mission in Monrovia and reduced the staff of the Soviet Embassy. He also reestablished diplomatic relations with Israel." I have removed this content and will check to see what others remain, but in the future I will not list out problems for you to address at that cleanup page, as I have been doing. You have not even edited the page since February 18th. It does not seem that cleaning up the copyright problems you introduced to Wikipedia is a high priority for you.--Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Query about deletion of the page titles "Jalpaiguri Government Engineering College"
Hi Pseudo-Richard,

I am an alumnus of Jalpaiguri Government Engineering College. I have graduated in 2006 with Mechanical Engineering. I want to create a page in Wikipedia for my college, but I have found that a previous such attempt was deleted by you.

Please let me know the reasons behind your deletion and the possible measures of rectifications that you deem fit.

Regards, Kinjal Sengupta, Kolkata, India +91 947 709 5408

kinjal.sengupta@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added byKinjals2010 (talk • contribs) 06:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Catholic Church and AIDS
This article is very poor at the moment, merely being a list of statements rather than covering or tackling the issues involved.  Xan  dar  01:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree. The article should be topic based rather than organized around individual Catholic personalities who have made statements on the topic. --Richard S (talk) 17:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * This is poor logic, I find. If we want to know about Jewish views on anything, we would cite a list of responsas from rabbis, and that would presumably correspond to the sect's views. These Cardinals are no different from chief rabbis, in that they present the opinions or philosophies of their peculiar religious group, which tend to build a type of consensus. It is a type of collegiality or conciliarity, if you like. Cf concept of ordinary magisterium. ADM (talk) 21:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Regarding this edit, I think it would be less POV if you also included Churchmen who have come out in support of the Holy See's position. Right now, people likeGeorge Pell, Carlo Caffarra and André-Mutien Léonard are really the driving forces behind the current moral orthodoxy, and not necessarily the Popes themselves. In fact, it is quite likely that the future bishops of Rome will uphold the current papacy's doctrinal line, since it already has support at the grassroots of the episcopal establishment. ADM(talk) 23:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration notice
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request atArbitration/Requests and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
 * Arbitration/Requests;
 * Arbitration guide.

Thanks,. Please add others to the party list if you think it is necessary.Karanacs (talk) 19:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Catholic Church
You commented on the recent sweeping changes. My critique of them and an alternate suggestion is linked atTalk:Catholic_Church  Xan  dar   14:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Eigenlob stinkt
That's the proverb. Eigenlob is literally "self-praise", same root as Eigenvalue. The verb (present tense, singular) means the same as the English cognate. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Catholic Church
Hi Richard,

Regarding:


 * "Sarek and I have asserted that silence can be construed as assent "

I totally disagree. I will comment on that page. History2007 (talk) 05:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Richard, Re the RFC, what you say: "It has been almost impossible to get anything deleted due to false appeals to "existing consensus" when no such consensus has been shown to exist" is perfectly true, but this process is now being duplicated for the "short" version! If that stays it will be just as difficult to get anything added due to false appeals to "existing consensus", and there is an awful lot that does need adding.   What we need is to get all to agree there is no prior "consensus" & set that dial to zero, not the version itself. Nancy has conceded this point now, which does offer a way forward. My view anyway.Johnbod (talk) 12:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Johnbod, please give me some examples of what you are describing. If I agree with you, I will work to get those points added in.  --Richard S (talk) 07:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well isn't it clear from the talk page? Just at the moment discussion of specific passages seems almost to have stopped, but it was clear from the comments after the cuts that re-inserting topics removed would be fiercely resisted.Johnbod(talk) 13:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Catholic sex abuse cases
The 3,300 unreported cases mentioned below is unclear. Is it a) 3,300 of 10,667 or, b) 3,300 of 4,392, or c) both a) and b) are correct?

I suggest that the title focus on the specific issue in context of the epoch, for example:

Catholic clergy sex abuse scandal in the late 20th Century

Thank you.

Robert Aceti Oakville, Ont., Canada

Quote follows:

United States

Main article: John Jay Report See also: Catholic sexual abuse scandal in the United States

The 2004 John Jay Report commissioned by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops was based on surveys completed by the Roman Catholic dioceses in the United States. The surveys filtered provided information from diocesan files on each priest accused of sexual abuse and on each of the priest's victims to the research team, in a format which did not disclose the names of the accused priests or the dioceses where they worked. The dioceses were encouraged to issue reports of their own based on the surveys that they had completed.

''The report found that 10,667 people had made allegations of child sexual abuse between 1950 and 2002. Of these, 3,300 were not investigated because the allegations were made after the accused priest had died.[citation needed] After investigating the remaining 7,700 allegations, the dioceses were able to substantiate 6,700 accusations against 4,392 priests in the USA, about 4% of all 109,694 priests who served during the time period covered by the study. The known number of abuses increased in the 1960s, peaked in the 1970s, declined in the 1980s and by the 1990s had returned to the levels of the 1950s.''[14]

Of the 4,392 priests against whom the accusations were deemed to be credible, 3,300 were not investigated because the allegations were made after the accused priest had died. Police were contacted regarding 1,021 of the remaining 1,092 priests, of whom 384 were prosecuted, resulting in 252 convictions and 100 prison sentences. Thus, 6% of all priests against whom allegations were made had been convicted and about 2% sentenced to prison at the date of the report.[15] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimeinc (talk • contribs) 18:11, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Christianity and violence
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, fordeletion. The nominated article is Christianity and violence. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Christianity and violence (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletiontemplate from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Tony
Tony's sudden interest in my past history is explainedhere.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:12, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Criticism of Judaism
I have nominated Criticism of Judaism, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Criticism of Judaism&. 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.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Spartaz Humbug! 05:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Martyr estimates
I've revised the text into a more encyclopedic form. I hope it is satisfactory! As always, the text is open to revision and commentary. Please tell me if you see any errors, omissions, or the like (though the omissions may only reflect the nature of the literature and the ultimate source material; thus, for example, I am unable to come up with any comment on the total number of martyrs for anything other than the Great Persecution, but I believe that this is a faithful reflection of the literature). Thanks for the ping. G.W. (Talk) 06:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Rodney Walker (writer)
Is there any way you can take the deleted page and userfy it to me on a special page? I'd really appreciate it. Cyprian Henterfield (talk) 06:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I've undone one of your history merges
Hi Richard, See my ranting and raving at Talk:Biblical canon. I've calmed down a bit now; I realise that you had been an admin for less than a month at the time you did that history merge. I've made many history merging errors as well; there easy to make, but a pain in the neck to fix!Graham 87 15:19, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Wikipedia/Catholic Church/Cultural Influence
A tag has been placed on Wikipedia/Catholic Church/Cultural Influence, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to an article talk page, file description page, file talk page, MediaWiki page, MediaWiki talk page, category talk page, portal talk page, template talk page, help talk, user page, user talk or special page from the main/article space.

If you can fix the redirect to point to a mainspace page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you are fixing the redirect. If you think the redirect should be retained as is for some reason, you can request that administrators wait a while before deleting it. To do this, affix the template   to the page and state your reasoning on the article'stalk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. DASHBot (talk) 00:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Other stuff
LoveMonkey (talk) 20:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Notice
Hi. Your input on the length of the Catholic Church article would be welcome at Talk:Catholic Church. — Jeff G. ツ 21:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Catholic Orthodox theological differences
OK then how is what do you suggest how to address and correct these edits esoglou did today on the article?, [ The first edit the author does not say what esoglou quotes him to say. The author is only quoting Dante and then later refutes Dante -as such the content doesn't really belong in the article at all. 2. Why did esoglou edit a source given and then put in a citation tag acting as if the source does not literally say that Pope Celestine stated that Cassians ideas be silenced? How is one supposed to handle stuff like this Richard? So if I pointed it out I am not abiding by good etiquette, at what point is one supposed to call people on this type of behavior? LoveMonkey (talk) 00:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There are a number of methods for dispute resolution. See WP:DR.  Incivility is not helpful. --Richard S (talk) 00:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

maybe you can help improve potentiality and actuality
Hi. Currently there is work going on at potentiality and actuality. One section which needs work I am not very qualified for is trying to improve the section on uses after Aristotle. I see you've edited or commented on subjects related before. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Man from Mars
Well, all the discussion has gotten an admission that there may be a call for onesentence''combined with the usual inventions of policy, and charges that other people chose the timing of the section he started. If you can interpret the nonsense again, you would be doing Wikipedia a service. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Catholic/Orthodox differences and the nature of flesh
Hi. I'm afraid there are still lively controversies going on at Catholic–Eastern Orthodox theological differences, and I'm wondering if you might be able to come back and help us some more.

Right now, the biggest issue appears to be a dispute over the EOC's beliefs regarding the human body. LoveMonkey is quoting Vladimir Lossky and several other Eastern theologians in support of the idea that the physical, material body did not exist before the fall of man and will not exist after the resurrection. Esoglou disagrees with the claim that the EOC teaches this, or that this is even what Lossky is saying, but LoveMonkey is standing firm. I see no prospect at all of these two editors succeeding in forging a consensus about this (or much of anything else).

I really think the only way to move forward on this article is to get more people involved who are either "knowledgeable Orthodox" or "Orthodoxy-knowledgeable" — not only so a genuine consensus can be built for the presentation of Orthodox issues, but also to be sure of what the sources being cited really mean (by having several knowledgeable people sift through the material), and to lessen the chance that sources might be getting inadvertently viewed through the (possibly skewed, or maybe not, but how can we know?) perspective of a single editor.

Would you be able to help? And/or do you know any other editors whom I could approach? Thanks for any leads. Richwales (talk · contribs) 17:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I hope you don't mind me ensuring, by putting this note on your Talk page, that you have noticed or will noticethis remark of mine. There is no need for you to acknowledge it either here or on the Talk page of the article. Thanks.  Esoglou (talk) 18:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

FYI
Please see this unprotectiong request:. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 03:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, sorry, I've done this in the wrong order. I've changed the protection to semi, as I can't see how fully protecting it is within policy, and fully protecting a talk page when the associated userpage is semi protected makes no sense. Ged  UK  07:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Wiki MoS Catholic Church
Hi Richard, I responded on the talk page. I loved the bit about the dinosaurs. That brought back a fond memory which I shared there. As regards my question, I don't think I made myself clear on what I was asking and I apologize for that. I do appreciate your taking the time to explain all that history. I was not at all aware that such discussions had taken place or that the question was so contentious. Better to leave off that one. Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 17:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic)
Hi, Richard. A question has been raised at Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) about whether its contents constitute 'original research'. Feedback has been sought at the Catholicism WikiProject, but it has not yet resulted in any takers. While there are concerns about canvassing, you were brought up as a good neutral person to approach, and I am an uninvolved person approaching you. :) I'm afraid the talk page conversation is both heated and long, but additional input from knowledgeable contributors could be most welcome there in helping to resolve a deadlock. I appreciate any input you may be able to provide.--Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:05, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Moonriddengirl, Richard has already commented here: . Thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 15:34, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of that, Malke 2010, but he has not been there since September 30th and the conversation is ongoing.--Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Richard. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

why did you delete the page on Red & white Holdings in 2008, what are you hiding? —Preceding unsigned comment added by82.16.67.8(talk) 17:26, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

October 2010
Your user page User:Pseudo-Richard/Admin school/Curriculum, by reason of its contents, was mistakenly included in Category:Wikipedia information pages. It has been corrected for you. Please review theguidelines about the categorization of user pages. --Bsherr (talk) 14:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Hell in Catholic theology
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents ofHell in Catholic theology, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php?act=Print&amp;client=printer&amp;f=11&amp;t=26381.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See ourcopyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 16:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Christianity and colonialism


Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, Christianity and colonialism. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - Colonialism, Age of Discovery, and Catholic Church and the Age of Discovery. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will to continue helping improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Colonialism, Age of Discovery, and Catholic Church and the Age of Discovery - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, 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; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administratoruserfy the page or email a copy to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. jsfouche &#9789;&#9790;   talk  06:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

contribution team
Greetings! Please excuse this intrusion on your talk page, and allow me to invite you to participate in the newly-formedWikipedia Contribution Team (WP:CONTRIB for short)! The goal of the team is to attract more and better contributions to the English Wikipedia, as well as to help support the fundraising team in our financial and editing contribution goals. We have lots of stuff to work on, from minor and major page building, to WikiProject outreach, article improvement, donor relations, and more—in fact, part of our mission is to empower team members to make their own projects to support our mission. Some of our projects only take a few minutes to work on, while others can be large, multi-person tasks—whatever your interest level, we're glad to have you.

If this sounds interesting, please visit WP:CONTRIB and sign onto the team. Even if there does not appear to be anything that really speaks out as being work you'd like to do, I'd encourage you to join and follow the project anyway, as the type of work we'll be doing will certainly evolve and change over time. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me, or ask on the team talk page. Regards, &rArr;   Dan Rosenthal   Wikipedia Contribution Team  22:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * By the way, this is a human edit (not a bot). I'm specifically contacting you as you expressed interest in the Campus Ambassador position, and the Wikipedia Contributions Team has a lot of commonality in working along with the Campus Ambassadors. You can reach me on my talk page, or by email at drosenthal@wikimedia.org with questions; I can't guarantee that I'll be checking back on your talk page often enough to hold a sustained conversation there. Regards,  &rArr;   Dan Rosenthal    Wikipedia Contribution Team  22:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia Campus Ambassador
Hi Richard, I've responded to your message on my talk page. Thanks! Annie Lin (Campus Team Coordinator, Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 01:37, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Queschun
You not admin. Wat diz mean? You not like buttonz maybbe? Think u wud get aprofed if you asked nisly. Wood be vary wiling to say nise things about you if rekwested. John Carter (talk) 20:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Despite the intentionally horrible joking grammar of the above, it is a real question. I would be honored to support your RfA if you had one. John Carter (talk) 20:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry for not responding to your original message... It's a bit complicated...  I was an admin and I was asked to give up the buttons so I did.  In truth, I wasn't using them much and felt guilty about not doing more admin type work but didn't really like doing it because it was mostly scut work (the buttons are really more a mop than anything else).  So... I may someday get around to asking for the buttons back.  It's not even clear that I need an RFA to get them back but I think I need to let some time pass before asking for them back. --Richard S (talk) 20:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Understood. But maybe I should say that I do primarily scut work as an admin myself, editing protected pages and templates and the like, so I personally don't think that to be that insignificant. ;) But, if you ever do feel the use for them again, if I can be of any help, please feel free to let me know. John Carter (talk) 19:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Violence in Christianity page
Thank you, I would be happy to contribute. It looks like you've made an excellent start.--Taiwan boi (talk) 02:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I would advise reading the article on the Malleus. The accuracy of that particular section of your article could be improved by using some of the sources in the Malleus article.--Taiwan boi (talk) 13:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

December 2010
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. Yopie (talk) 17:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Re: POV Page: Judaism and violence
Please see this edit:

Explanation provided at: 184.48.93.218(talk) 02:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Your edit of the "Theosis" article
In view of LoveMonkey's addition to it, do you still think it was wise to insert in the lead of Theosis the passage that youmoved there complete with the questioned claim, "Eastern Orthodox and Western Christian conceptions of theosis are not identical. "?  I am postponing any intervention by me, in view of the discussion and in the last sections of the Theoria article. Esoglou (talk) 08:29, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I support your edits--a claim that the EO and RC views of a doctrine such as this are identical would seem  to be the view that would appear unlikely. The article appears in all its versions to discuss the differences.   DGG( talk ) 22:48, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Lost Caesar
He returned as Coeur Leonis, or something like that. I haven't seen him around for a long time. Leadwind (talk) 01:41, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Religion and society articles and sections
I've actually seen that there are NPOV problems regarding just about any article relating to religion in general, so I guess I'm not surprised that you indicate that there would be similar problems with specific sections or articles on this topic. One thing I am planning to propose next year is that we make a bit more of a concerted effort to refer to the available reference works on each religion, specifically encyclopedic entries on those groups, as a way of determining what content should be in the main article for each group. The same approach, if successful, might apply to material on the obvious immediate subtopics. But I do see how your point is a valid one. Have a happy holiday season in any event. John Carter (talk) 18:02, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Bradshaw
In the interests of directing discussion to substance rather than to the legitimacy of commenting out a particular passage, would it perhaps be best to undo the commenting out and place a "clarification needed" tag with the text whose presence requires explanation? Esoglou (talk) 18:44, 24 December 2010 (UTC) Apologies. It seems that it is already done. I have difficulty enough to follow the remarks directed at myself, so you will understand and please forgive my failure to follow the exchanges with you. 19:49, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, it was not I that undid the commenting out and I was sorely tempted to put it back but it's hard for me to counsel collaboration and collegiality if I engage in edit-warring myself so, against my preference, I decided to let the god-awful text stand until somebody can take a whack at writing something close to comprehensible in its place. --Richard S(talk) 19:53, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

comments
"Stick it your ear" is not appropriate language on an article talk p. (this is not meant to indicate my view of the content dispute).  DGG ( talk ) 22:07, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know... consider my wrist duly slapped. I'll try not to make a habit of it. --Richard S (talk) 22:12, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Theosis (Eastern Orthodox theology)


Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, Theosis (Eastern Orthodox theology). First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - Theosis. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will to continue helping improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Theosis - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, 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; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administratoruserfy the page or email a copy to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions.  Cind. amuse  08:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Roman Catholic-Eastern Orthodox theological differences
Your latest edit to this article unfortunately means that I will have to add to it for balance. It omits Roman Catholic teaching on hell and gives only one of several authoritative Eastern Orthodox presentations of what hell essentially is, suggesting too that this presentation is rejected in the West, instead of being seen as one of several possible presentations. So the section will have to grow again to what it was. While the drawbacks of the text that you have (re)inserted are less evident in other contexts, they are serious in an article on theological differences between the two sides. Esoglou (talk) 09:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I did see that there was an imbalance but I didn't know enough to be able to fix it. I don't see why you think that it's unfortunate that you have to "add to it for balance".  Is it not possible to come up with a one or two paragraph summary of the difference without going into great detail?  LM's problem is that he wants to get into a full exposition of EO doctrine when all that is needed is a brief summary. This is a recurring problem on a lot of articles. --Richard S(talk) 15:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Two things needed balancing. By providing, in an article on RCC-EOC theological differences, an account only of EOC theology, it gave the impression that RCC theology simply rejected that picture of hell.  And again, it gave one picture of EOC theology as the only one, when EOC theology uses other images as well.  Taiwan boi removed both views, as essentially adding nothing to the article on Hell in Christianity.  Reinserting just one side was, I thought, unbalanced.  Esoglou (talk) 18:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I am willing to be the editor who actually makes the edits to restore the balance but I need to understand what you think is the best balance. Do the EOC and RCC in fact agree on their visions of hell or do they differ?  If so, in what ways do they differ.  I apologize that I didn't follow closely the long discussion about hell being a physical place or just "separation from God" so I don't even know what the final resolution of that discussion was.  Please summarize it for me.  Thanks.--Richard S (talk) 00:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * LoveMonkey has been refusing to accept that it is Orthodox to speak of the damned as separated from God. However, a considerable advance was made recently, when he dropped the claim that, because the saved and the damned can be spoken of as in God's presence, they are in one and the same place.  Catholics would not reject either picture: "in the presence of God" (cf. end of the Dream of Gerontius) or "separated from God".  Esoglou (talk) 07:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * So, what is the text that you would propose which "restores the balance"? --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 07:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I have already done it, some hours after I first raised the question with you. Esoglou (talk) 09:02, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Palamism
I've left some comments on the talk page of the Palamism article that you created. --Phatius McBluff(talk) 01:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Doesn't Runciman indicate that Barlaam took an interest in hesychasm after Palamas had attacked Barlaam's writing on the Holy Spirit? Esoglou (talk) 09:04, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Cool name
Just wanted to say that I like your name change. When I first saw it, I thought, "Pseudo-Dionysius?" From your message on your user page, it looks like I was right. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 18:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)