User talk:StAnselm/2013b

Identity of Mary of Bethany
It can be said that Mary Magdalene is different from Mary of Bethany, and that the orthodox church actually considers them as separate persons. However, I would like to point out that the Latin fathers and the Catholic church consider them as one and the same. Thank youKuya kyon (talk) 08:04, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Removal of Nude Bathsheba image
The image has excessive nudity which has no relevance in the larger context of the Book of Samuel. Such nudity or sexually explicit content would have been appropriate in pages concerning human body or anatomy or actresses. Considering the religious context of the Holy Scriptures, it would be offensive or distractive to someone who is studying Book of Samuel. Thanks. Samuelled (talk) 12:32, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:ERA misinterpretation
I don't want to edit war over this - I think you're remembering an old version of WP:ERA. It now says established style with no reference about how the article started. BCE was added in December 2010 to a version that had no era nomenclature as BC had been removed in July 2009. There's no hard and fast rule here about 'establshed' but I've seen a change from BC to BCE that hadn't been challenged for about 2 years kept, and in this case there was no change from BC to BCE, just a much earlier unrelated removal of BC and then someone adding BCE. I hope you'll self-revert. Dougweller (talk) 09:43, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Dougweller (talk) 11:51, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Annihilationism
I started a section on Talk:Annihilationism regarding an external link that you removed the other day. I have an admitted COI here so I figured that would be the best way to go about it. Against the current (talk) 21:46, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm impressed
That was a rare win for you on Prophecy of the Popes. And from a non-administrator at that!! Good job. I was reviewing my past contributions and eventually realized that somebody had removed that whole section. I think I've never seen the likes of it on Wikipedia. I honestly don't know if the Prophecy is true (how can one really know), but that section was completely unreferenced. I just wanted to commend you for showing me that anything is in fact possible here on Wikipedia. Thanks. ☺  Lighthead  þ 05:05, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

When God Writes Your Love Story
Hi Anselm,

Thank you for your edits on the When God Writes Your Love Story article. The article is a current featured article candidate. Any comments you would be willing to provide at the discussion would be greatly appreciated.

Neelix (talk) 16:35, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Crossway College.png
 Thanks for uploading File:Crossway College.png. 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 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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- Тимофей ЛееСуда . 04:08, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Ulrika Jonsson pictures
Are you sure these pictures are of the correct Ulrika Jonsson? They don't look like her at all, compared to (say) the pictures in Google Images.

JabeMohn (talk) 10:22, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Dubious claim psycho
Need help in monitoring this lunatic - Surtsicna, the claim on names and royal styles from birth is clearly pointless and senseless, all because we heard news that William was named after a week and Charles was named after a month, who knows when Elizabeth or George VI was named. If you look at the articles of Elizabeth and George, they are featured articles, and have passed wikipedia standards. I know you get my point and we share the same sentiments. The user is on a rampage and on a mission for all European royalties. Any way we can get this barred? Pseud 14 (talk) 15:47, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Untrue edit comment
Your edit comment for http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gary_North_%28economist%29&diff=566102405&oldid=566098408 just wasn't true, so I put it all back. I'm gonna assume you made a mistake, this time. But if you keep it up, I'm gonna report you for lying. MilesMoney (talk) 03:53, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Miles, please assume good faith. St. Anselm has been editing WP for a long time and has an excellent record. We don't go about accusing people of lying. Doing so, without clear evidence, is a personal attack. Please remove your last two sentences by using strikeout markup. It will look like this . Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 04:34, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

William Branham
William M. Branham appears to be quite biased from my point of view. In fact, it appears that the article is being used as an apologetic for William Branham by his followers. The article is filled with links to pro-branham websites, while all external links to websites critical of Branham were eliminated.

I have no issue with the NPOV concept and that self-published sources can't be utilized but there must be some kind of balance to free an article from the kind of bias that colors the article in its present state.

I am at a bit of a loss as to how to proceed given that the editor that was responsible for deletion of the critical links is an avowed follower of Branham and is largely responsible for the present state of the article. I would appreciate your advice on the issue. Thanks. Taxee (talk) 23:20, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Prince George_of_Cambridge#Title". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot  operator /  talk  04:02, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello
Please corresct the article that I recently created its the Presbyterin Church in Korea HapDongBoSu II.) thats correctly the Presbyterian Church in Korea (HapDongBoSu II.). Please help! Cryx88

List of scandals involving American evangelical Christians
I think your recent edits here have been rather unhelpful. You could have added refs from the main articles rather than delete the entries. All the subjects had their reputation or credibility damaged or destroyed - the definition of a scandal. I could write a justification for each if you wanted. In the context of your AfD nomination, I think this could be considered tendentious editing. As I said before, I don't want to get into an edit war, but you do seem to be behaving in a provocative manner. SmilingFace (talk) 13:32, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Ashes 2013 page
Thanks for correcting my error on the Fourth Test section of the article. I watched every ball of the Australian innings today, and still got the batsman completely wrong!

MTracey1 20:56, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

That rag
says Klansmen, I checked before adding it back. Dougweller (talk) 14:25, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I must have been remembering this and didn't read the source carefully enough. I know that klansmen have been in attendance. Dougweller (talk) 12:33, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Kellie Loder
Hi Anselm,

Thank you for your edits on the Kellie Loder article. The article is a current featured article candidate. Any comments you would be willing to provide at the discussion would be greatly appreciated.

Neelix (talk) 16:09, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

False accusations
Adding references to an article is not unconstructive. Stay away from my page and do not harass me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.7.236.155 (talk) 12:44, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about List of Christian synonyms
Hello, StAnselm,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether List of Christian synonyms should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Articles for deletion/List of Christian synonyms.

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks, —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 04:06, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
—Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 04:23, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Please don't 'plate the regs
Good Lord. Are you seriously contending that Jack Chick isn't opposed to Catholicism? I think you need your head examined! -- Kendrick7talk 04:52, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Really? This is the guy upon with which you are making your stand? The most virulently anti-Catholic American of the past century? Not to mention he has no love lost for the Jews. Really?? -- Kendrick7talk 05:23, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Ah, OK, I've figured out from your user page that you are an Australian. If Chick tracts haven't made their way across the Pacific Ocean then I'm (a) incredibly thankful about that and (b) very sorry we got in a ruckus/affray about it. Hate literature that one would find in a public restroom or bus stop or laundromat is a very cultural thing that no one talks about.... -- Kendrick7talk 06:48, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

August 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=569171441 your edit] to List of Christian synonyms may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 ""s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:28, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * as "brethren", while modern English versions have "brothers" (ESV) or "brothers and sisters" NIV. The term comes from the theological concept of adoption, which

Reverting my edits
Can you kindly let me know why my edits are reverted. Benedictdilton (talk) 04:38, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Sir am I worth enough to get an explanation.Benedictdilton (talk) 03:12, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for pointing out the problem with my addition to the "Problem of Hell" page. I can see the logic and will be more careful in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael R. Burch (talk • contribs) 12:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello
Why did you remove my comment on the Manning page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Two kinds of pork (talk • contribs) 18:31, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * People are going a little nuts on that Talk Page, Two kinds of pork. This isn't the first time a transgender person has had a bio on WP, I don't see the controversy. Liz Let's Talk 20:20, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't really care what the convict thinks. But if one goes to an article for Bradley Manning and it says Chelsea Manning people are going to be confused. Seems overly PC to me, but if people want to keep it that way they should explain in the very first sentence this incongruity.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Two kinds of pork (talk • contribs) 20:38, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Yet more spurious accusations
Please stop making spurious accusations of disruptive editing as you did | here. 46.7.236.155 (talk) 12:00, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Do you even lift? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.81.18.30 (talk) 06:30, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

What did I ever do to you?
I am complete confused why you are WP:STALKing me around the project and reverting my edits. -- Kendrick7talk 04:25, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Manning merge
Hi, I noticed that you posted the merge tag on the Manning article. I'm not sure who actually proposed the merge. Was it you or someone else? Anyway, the reason I ask is because there doesn't appear to be consensus for the merge, so I wanted to ask the proposer to withdraw it. That merge proposal is preventing any other merge proposals from being made. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:20, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

September 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=571018752 your edit] to Killer Bitch may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:


 * | starring      = Yvette Rowland

Robin Reid

[Alex Reid (fighter)

Alex Reid]

Cass Pennant

Carlton Leach

Dave Courtney

Roy Shaw

Ben Dover Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:50, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=571587758 your edit] to 2013 AFL Rising Star may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:37, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * ev=click|publisher=National Australia Bank|accessdate=29 June 2010}} The 2013 winner was [Jaeger O'Meara].

Manning and Etiquette
Hi StAnselm,

On the Manning talk page you wrote "It is an undisputed fact that Manning identifies as a woman. What is in dispute is whether she really is a woman, and whether it's appropriate to categorize her as such."

The question hinges on what one means by "woman": if it means "person with XX chromosomes" or "person with a vagina" then clearly Manning is not a woman; however in discourse relating to trans matters it is usually taken to mean "person with a female gender identity" (see also Sex and gender distinction), and in that case it is clearly impossible for anyone except for the person themselves to determine whether or not they really are a woman.

Therefore I politely request that you edit or strike the remark, because as it stands it reads as if you're saying that she cannot determine her own gender identity, or indeed that trans identities are invalid in general. Chris Smowton (talk) 12:14, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


 * (Let's keep the thread in one place): Agreed that people are arguing about it. Your comment as it stands strongly suggests that you argue for the pretty inflammatory position that trans identities are not valid (or at least that you don't recognise them). If that isn't the case I suggest you explicitly distance yourself from that position. Chris Smowton (talk) 12:41, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


 * If Manning identified as William III and insisted on being addressed as Your Majesty, would there be any dispute about whether he was really the dear dead king?PiCo (talk) 02:41, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Greek 30 Drachma 1963 small.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Greek 30 Drachma 1963 small.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Werieth (talk) 20:28, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Richard Markham (field hockey)
I have added some tags to the page you created on September 5th 2013. This page needs significant improvement. Unfortunately there is very little information on the page and due to Wikipedia's policies it may be subject to deletion. Because of this I have also added the under construction tag to mark that the page is due to be edited soon.

Best of luck with the page  Kira Chinmoku  ( T, ¤ ) 16:32, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Reply added on my talk page  Kira Chinmoku  ( T, ¤ ) 21:30, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Added reply (fixed page tags)  Kira Chinmoku  ( T, ¤ ) 21:41, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Significant edit
The edit I made to ElissaSursara having a verified Twitter account is significant if only temporarily while helping establish notability of the subject pending a deletion discussion. I am not saying that information should stay there forever. MattDoherty11 (talk) 02:50, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Un-collapsing Afd sock tagging
Despite the fact all three wrote in clearly the same way and all came from the same ISP? Really? Next time, try asking me first, I don't do things like that without a good reason. Black Kite (talk) 19:11, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Varvaris
Not fussed either way really as long as all mentions on Wikipedia point to the same place. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 02:52, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

RFAR:Manning naming dispute - Formally added as party
The drafting arbitrators have requested that you be formally added as a party to the Manning naming dispute case. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Evidence. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Seddon talk 18:35, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi StAnselm, I hope you don't leave WP. I value your feedback and improvements to my efforts and I am hoping you will assist with a Peer Review soon. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 06:52, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Request
Would you please take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Vejlefjord/Metanoia_(Draft). Do you think it merits (or what does it need to merit) being placed in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Metanoia_(theology)&redirect=no and deleting Redirect to Repentance? Vejlefjord (talk) 19:23, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Liberty + mental health
This thread may interest you Pass a Method   talk  08:50, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Revert
Oops, sorry for messing with the closed discussion, was reading on the edit page so didn't notice the closed tags. Chris Smowton (talk) 00:04, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Laurel Lodged
I've been having issues with Laurel Lodged and her editing of Roman Catholic pages for about a year or so now. Do you share my concerns about her and her editing? She is POV pushing her point of view that the Roman Catholic church didn't exist on Roman Catholic church pages. Benkenobi18 (talk) 02:00, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Roman_Catholic_Church&action=history Thoughts? I reverted the picture (which has never been on the page. It's POV pushing that the Roman Catholic church was not the 'early church'. Not only is it POV but it doesn't belong in the category. Benkenobi18 (talk) 02:37, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The problem with the edit is that the Catholic church says he's one of the bishops of Clogher. She's asserting that the 'roman Catholic diocese of Clogher' did not exist prior to the reformation. She's arguing that it existed as the COE which didn't exist prior to Cranmer and that the Roman Catholic church which did exist back then did not. This is contrary to what history actually says.Benkenobi18 (talk) 02:49, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No, both the Church of Ireland and the Roman Catholic Church claim descent from and continuity with the original pre-Reformation church. To privilege one above the other is POV. Of course, you may well have been misled by my user name - my profile says that I'm a Calvinist. StAnselm (talk) 03:03, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately history doesn't back you up here. You'll have to find some sources to countervail the Catholic claim. Historical fact isn't POV. Are you going to remove all the Catholic saints and bishops prior to the reformation, including St. Peter, etc? Benkenobi18 (talk) 03:34, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you going to revert every one of my edits without discussion? Benkenobi18 (talk) 04:24, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * This is the most blatent example of Canvassing that I've seen in a long time. If BK18 goes on to implement his/her threatened topic ban, this evidence will be brought out. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:20, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Mac Cairthinn of Clogher
I was going to undo my edit on Mac Cairthinn of Clogher's page and correct the categories but you've already beat me to it. I had saw a red category link on Mac Cairthinn of Clogher's page and thought there was a mistake with it and so changed the upper case B to the lower case b for the Category:Roman Catholic bishops of Clogher, and removed the Category:Bishops of Clogher because I thought he belonged in the sub-cat. But I've realised that he can't be in the Category:Roman Catholic bishops of Clogher, which is for those bishops of the the post-Reformation Roman Catholic diocese, because the diocese was not established until 1111. If anything he was just a bishop based at Clogher. So I agree with you that he belongs in the Category:Bishops of Clogher. Sorry if I've caused any trouble. Regards Scrivener-uki (talk) 18:51, 19 September 2013 (UTC) the post-Reformation


 * This too is a result of BK18's interventions. As fas as he is concerned, all RC bishops have always been RC bishops, even if they became bishops shortly after 33 AD. The discussion on the Category:Irish bishops talk page is instructive in this regard. It's a pity that the scheme was not implemented. It was interventions like this one from BK18 that I anticipated and that made me hesitate about supporting the schema. I'm now minded to support it. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:25, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Island arc vs Island Arc
Hi, regarding this move, the difference between the two articles is now only a capitalized A in the journal name. You sure that's enough to disambiguate? --Randykitty (talk) 09:23, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not sure. I think that was a bad move on my part. I've moved it back now. StAnselm (talk) 09:25, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

linking to Journals
Hi StAnselm WeigelaPen (talk) 10:06, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Answer to Cyclase-associated_protein_family

'url' was a form of abbreviation - I'm sorry. This wikilink was inside a pair of ref tags, so you were giving a link to the journal when the reference was listed under 'References' - I don't think this is appropriate

thanks WeigelaPen (talk) 08:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

30th September


 * Hi


 * I took advice from a WP editor who replied with the following:

"the Manual of Style recommends text in italics for journals: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CITE#Journal_articles

So it would be OK to revert them, if it really bothers you, claiming overlinking (this is not specifically mentioned, though): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Linking#What_generally_should_not_be_linked"


 * On balance, the titles of journals are generally not linked.


 * thanks
 * WeigelaPen

Hi References are not exactly 'footnotes', are they.

There are almost no other instances where the journal title is linked. 2001:630:206:FFFF:0:0:3128:B (talk) 11:42, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * this is a case of over linking. It is also creating a deal of unnecessary work for me since I have to review your 'Additions' every time you make one, on articles linked to our database.

Poems =/= itals
Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:15, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Warning
Your recent editing history at Irreligion in the United States shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Pass a Method  talk  21:28, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your welcoming
--Prograce (talk) 08:38, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Strange cap
Your comments make sense, but, I request you to move back the article. Actually the article was started with title Religion not the crying need of India, then it was moved to the title with C in "Crying", as it was seen everywhere including the Complete Works that strange cap is used. See Google Books result. I learned, they gave stress on "Crying", that's why capitalized C in Crying. -- Tito ☸ Dutta 09:16, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I did not get any source that support directly the title, but, yes, sources mention Vivekananda stressed on the word "Crying" to explain, Religion was a need of India, but not a "Crying" need. -- Tito ☸ Dutta 09:18, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

CfD: New Zealand people of Yugoslav descent
See discussion here. Noted you are populating the category but wonder if it isn't too granular to be useful or relevant and likely to remain very sparse. As of now, two of the 3 people contained within it (incl. subcat) are members of the same Kiwi family. Please comment? Dwpaul (talk) 13:26, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Lorde - Dalmatian vs Serbian
Hi there. Thanks for the comment. I changed Lorde's maternal hertiage from Dalmatian to Serbian based on what was written in the profile on Lorde in the October Metro magazine. I added this reference to the article. The interview is not online, but this is the relevant text:

"Sonja Yelich and her husband have very particular ideas about parenting. Sonja's father was a first-generation Serbian immigrant, working every hour possible at whatever came to hand."

Now that I look at the definition of Dalmatia, I see that it is a different region to Serbia, more akin to modern day Croatia. However, in New Zealand history, the term Dalmatian (or Dallie, for short) was used to describe any migrant from the former Yugoslavia, so that's possibly why "Dalmatian" has been used. It's also possible that the Metro article got it wrong!

I don't know a lot about the politics of this part of the world, but I understand that there are contentious issues surrounding the naming of different regions. Please be assured that it was a good-faith edit on my behalf with no political motivations. Robyn2000 (talk) 00:18, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


 * And thanks for your reply! I might see if I can find out more from the guy who interviewed Lorde for Metro. It's quite an interesting subject! Robyn2000 (talk) 00:37, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Article titles for CSI dioceses of India
Hello StAnselm, You had moved a couple of Church of South India diocese articles from 'Anglican Diocese of X' to 'Diocese of X of the CSI'. However the convention on Wikipedia is that Anglican diocese and bishop titles are 'Anglican Diocese/Bishop of ...'. The CSI is a full member of the Anglican communion, it is appropriate to use the format 'Anglican Diocese of X'. Please see a related discussion here. Hence, I am moving the CSI diocese articles to this format. Best regards, The Discoverer (talk) 06:13, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello StAnselm, first of all, I now sincerely regret being hasty in moving the pages. Yes, I understand what you are trying to say, but their primary characteristic is 'Anglican'. That's what all their categories and pages are named are named and that's what they prefer being referred to as. So there is uniformity between the categories and the page titles if we use Anglican. As I mentioned in the discussion at CfD, I myself once changed a title to Anglican-Protestant, but it was reverted. The Discoverer (talk) 06:34, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, one must keep in mind that dioceses are a Catholic, Othodox and Anglican concept, not Methodist. These are actually termed as Anglican provinces and dioceses . However, if you wish to revert and have a discussion, I don't mind. I once again apologise for my haste.The Discoverer (talk) 06:44, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I have placed a requested moves notice on the Madras diocese talk page; a bot will list it for discussion at WP:Requested moves soon. I will also leave a note at the CSI talk page and inform editors who were involved in the old discussion. The Discoverer (talk) 07:53, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Please give your point of view at Talk:Diocese_of_Madras_of_the_Church_of_South_IndiaThe Discoverer (talk) 08:03, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute closed
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
 * 1)  is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to any transgender topic or individual, broadly construed.
 * 2)  is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to any transgender topic or individual, broadly construed.
 * 3)  is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to any transgender topic or individual, broadly construed.
 * 4)  is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to any transgender topic or individual, broadly construed.
 * 5)  is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to any transgender topic or individual, broadly construed. He is also topic banned from all pages (including biographies) related to leaks of classified information, broadly construed.
 * 6)  is admonished for acting in a manner incompatible with the community's expectations of administrators (see ).
 * 7)  is indefinitely prohibited from using his administrator permissions (i) on pages relating to transgender people or issues and (ii) in situations involving such pages. This restriction may be first appealed after six months have elapsed, and every six months thereafter.
 * 8) The standard discretionary sanctions adopted in Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology for (among other things) "all articles dealing with transgender issues" remain in force. For the avoidance of doubt, these discretionary sanctions apply to any dispute regarding the proper article title, pronoun usage, or other manner of referring to any individual known to be or self-identifying as transgender, including but not limited to Chelsea/Bradley Manning.  Any sanctions imposed should be logged at the Sexology case, not this one.
 * 9) All editors, especially those whose behavior was subject to a finding in this case, are reminded to maintain decorum and civility when engaged in discussions on Wikipedia, and to avoid commentary that demeans any other person, intentionally or not.

For the Arbitration Committee, Rschen7754 01:36, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

BLP violations re gender change
Please note that the MoS specifically states that those undergoing a gender change must be referred to by their chosen names and pronouns. To do otherwise is both rude and a violation of our biogrphy of living persons policy. Yworo (talk) 02:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did to Template talk:WikiLeaks. Thank you. Yworo (talk) 02:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Template talk:WikiLeaks. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version 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 you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Yworo (talk) 02:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

October 2013
Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Template talk:WikiLeaks. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Yworo (talk) 02:04, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Template talk:WikiLeaks, you may be blocked from editing. Yworo (talk) 02:16, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Australian Curriculum
Thanks for correcting me on my move of Australian curriculum to Australian Curriculum. This is a necessary move to achieve correct proper noun status but is blocked because there was a redirect at Australian Curriculum. The page you cite for requesting redirects is way over my head, so unless you want / are able to add the request there, the article will have to remain incorrectly located at Australian curriculum. C'est la vie, and thanks again. Ishel99 (talk) 05:26, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Chelsea Manning
Your recent editing history at Chelsea Manning shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Yworo (talk) 01:17, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions warning
--Rschen7754 01:57, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Single event bios
10:06, 25 October 2013‎ StAnselm (talk | contribs)‎ m. . (5,147 bytes) (0)‎. . (StAnselm moved page Raising of Tabitha to Dorcas over redirect: Reverted move - since she is named, we should have an article on the person) (undo | thank)
 * But we don't do that for living people, why do it for a figure in an ancient book? In ictu oculi (talk) 10:26, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter
Books and Bytes Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013 by , Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved... New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted. New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis?? New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration Read the full newsletter ''Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 22:03, 27 October 2013 (UTC)''

Thank you!
Hi StAnselm - thanks for adding the picture to Kelly's Steps. In the image, the stage door to the Peacock Theatre is on the viewer's left right Stage Right. Pete aka --Shirt58 (talk) 11:19, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Color me puzzled.
I am puzzled by your decision to award a barnstar to Dark Mistress. I see it differently than you, but don't want to jump to unwarranted conclusions, so wonder if you would be willing to share your thinking.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  15:45, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I thought she was making a genuine effort to calm things down and inject some civility into the situation. And she got badly bitten. I think it's important for the Wikipedia community to show support to people in that situation.

Another point of puzzlement: despite your apparent stance on civility and the reminders from multiple people, you do not appear to have either withdrawn or apologized for this. Your actions in this case in general do not seem to support your principles and objectives. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:41, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was wrong in posting that vandalism template - I see that now. And it seems to have set in motion an unfortunate chain of events. User:Parrot of Doom obviously doesn't want me talking to him or her, or posting on his or her talk page - otherwise I would post my withdrawal there. StAnselm (talk) 20:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, that recognition is a start, at least, so thank you. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:21, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Brother Anselm, it looks like you ran into serious OWNership issues at the Guy Fawkes Day article. Even IF you were completely wrong, no editor should be subject to the abuse you've received. You were justified in reporting Mr. Congeniality for his lack of civility. Of course, they're already minimizing his foul mouth. Thank you for being bold. PS: I think you're right about presbytery. --96.231.113.61 (talk) 22:05, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Eric
Regarding your "oppose" to a next step: I had only positive interactions with Eric, look for his name on my talk and archive, and for mine on his, where "Precious" (May 2012) is now frozen on top, "We need a perspective". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:13, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm just going to reply here, if that's OK. Anyway, I hadn't really had any dealings with him at all, before this week. I had heard the name "Malleus Fatuorum", but wasn't aware of the history, and didn't know about the user name change. I just came across this editor called Eric Corbett who was making personal attacks. And I am shocked to see so many people apparently happy for him to continue those sort of attacks. StAnselm (talk) 22:27, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Obviously we have a different understanding of the "personal" in "personal attacks" and the "attack" in something that is a reply. I posted one line about poking on his talk yesterday and supported the "next step" because Eric will "learn" nothing by a block, as I will not change my mind about infoboxes by an arbcom restriction, - both a waste of time. I wonder if I should add "blocked" to the top of my talk, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:39, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * And that surprises me to hear you say that but about "personal" attacks. This was the first one I saw - how is that not personal? Surely it's comments like this that drive people away from Wikipedia. But I really appreciate your attitude and what you're doing. I think we're both passionate about Wikipedia being a nicer and safer place to be. StAnselm (talk) 22:48, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Ridintherails/Steven Furtick
Hi, StAnselm. Thanks for your vigilance on the Steven Furtick page and your kicking off of the conversation on Talk:Steven Furtick. I was wondering if you might stop back by that section of the talk page, just take a look, and add your two cents if you don't mind. Ridintherails seems very angry with me for reverting his edits and has levied some pretty heavy accusations at me, calling me a "shill" and accusing me of "resume" editing. The anger has just clouded the talk page and prevented any progress from being made to move the conversation forward and improve the article. I thought you might inject some civility back into the conversation, which I would welcome no matter if you agree with me or Ridintherails. It does seem based on one particular comment directed to me that Ridintherails is preparing to make major changes to the article in order to paint Furtick in a more negative light. I'd like to try to steer away from that cliff with some conversation if it's possible. Even if you aren't able to make it over to the talk page, appreciate you taking the time to read this, thanks. Eventhewise (talk) 07:03, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Christian Economy
You PRODded this, and it was deleted. Undeletion has been requested at WP:REFUND, so per WP:DEL I have restored it, and now notify you in case you wish to consider AfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 12:31, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit-warring
Hello, Brother Anselm. I just read your comment under the "Five Pillars" section of the EC business, regarding block length. Is it true that automatically longer blocks are only applied in the case of repeated edit-warring? I've thought for a long time that the increasing-length-block idea applied to all kinds of misbehavior. I'm no expert on wikipolicy. Am I mistaken in my understanding? --96.231.113.61 (talk) 18:54, 30 October 2013 (UTC)