User talk:StAnselm/2015a

El Negro Zumbón
Thank you for the thank you, StAnselm ... very much appreciated! Was actually just about to write you, to let you know that I removed the "redirect" from the song to the movie. And judging by your response, you are OK that I did it; am glad. Great song ... worth its own page ... great scene in the movie too, even if Silvana Mangano didn't actually sing it. - Xenxax (talk) 02:07, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

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

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

What were you thinking?
Why did you move Leelah's Law to Leelah's Alcorn Law? It doesn't make sense and it doesn't follow the sources. Next time, please think before you make such a move and discuss it on the talk page. Thanks.- MrX 03:14, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I added a source: the Huff Post article. The petition clearly says "We ask that you name the bill in memory of Leelah as the Leelah's Alcorn Law and protect the lives of transgender youth." StAnselm (talk) 03:16, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Give me break. The title of the petition is "Enact Leelah's Law to Ban Transgender Conversion Therapy" We don't repeat obvious typos, and we sure don't give them precedence over multiple other sources, with better reputations that HuffPo. I sincerely believe you are trying to make a WP:POINT and I'm finding it very disruptive.- MrX 03:22, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It's pretty obvious that you are trying to discredit the people that created the petition by portraying them as illiterate. Of course, this affects the family and friends of the recently deceased girl. Please stop.- MrX 03:34, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The illiterate aspect certainly crossed my mind - 200,000 people said that they wanted it called Leelah's Alcorn Law. But there's nothing pointy about it: that's the proposed name in the petition. StAnselm (talk) 03:37, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 200,000 people said that they wanted it called Leelah's Alcorn Law. You know this how? It's obvious that the person who created the petition meant Leelah Alcorn's Law, but it doesn't matter because the vast majority of sources say "Leelah's Law" as does the Facebook page and the page that kicked of the campaign, LeelahsLaw.com.- MrX 03:45, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't believe that you are edit warring to restore this obvious misinformation, and a WP:BLP violation. I am requesting that you restore the factually accurate version of the article, else I will have to seek community input at ANI.- MrX 03:49, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Once again, this is the official name of the proposed law, even if it isn't the most common one. No, I don't know why they didn't say "We ask that you name the bill in memory of Leelah as Leelah's Law". But the erroneous name is in both primary and secondary sources, and failing to mention it is a suppression of the facts. As to the BLP violation, I totally reject your claim - but of course I will abide by the consensus of the wider community, so feel free to take it further. StAnselm (talk) 03:54, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - MrX 04:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh boy, The Article is going to be walking NPOV violation if this is how slight infraction will be dealt with, indicating that anybody who disagrees with you must be transphobic, seems like assume good faith has gone down the drain today. Good Luck StAnselm Avono (talk) 16:17, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

January 2015
Your recent editing history at Leelah's Law shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

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. - MrX 19:06, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Next Tasmanian state election
There doesn't appear to be any dispute at Next Tasmanian state election; the editor Timeshift seems to have misread my edit, since his edit summaries don't match up with what he reverted. Please self revert your reversion of my edit unless you have evidence that there is still an actual dispute. Colonial Overlord (talk) 07:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I also disagreed with the insertion - I think it's undue weight for the lead paragraph. StAnselm (talk) 11:40, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Could you elaborate? Undue weight for what? Colonial Overlord (talk) 11:56, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That in reliable sources, the election is described as essentially a competition between Labor and Liberal. The Liberals will be attempting to beat Labor to form government, so the Greens don't need to be mentioned. StAnselm (talk) 19:58, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

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

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 21:19, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

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

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 01:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

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

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 05:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Society of Jesus
Hello, StAnselm! First, a belated "Happy New Year" even though it's already February (can you believe it?). I have just finished going through the article Society of Jesus (about the Jesuits) with a fine-toothed comb. You'll see that I've made some minor copy-edits but other than that I hardly changed anything. I have found three minor things I wanted to ask you about:

1) In the ninth paragraph in Society of Jesus, which starts "On 22 April 2006, Feast of Our Lady, Mother of the Society of Jesus", in the middle of the paragraph you will see, "for having granted to your Company the gift of men of extraordinary sanctity and of exceptional apostolic zeal such as St Ignatius of Loyola, St Francis Xavier and Bl Peter Faber".


 * I can't figure out what that "B1" (letter + number) or "Bl" (letter + lowercase letter "L") is before "Peter Faber". I just saw that there is an article on Peter Faber. I haven't read that article, but I see he was also a Jesuit, so I would expect S.J. after his name (if that is the same Peter Faber). Can you figure this out? Also, if it is the same Peter Faber, perhaps we should add the link.

2) In the first paragraph of the section Society of Jesus, you'll see a list of names, each followed by the person's birth and death dates in parentheses. However, for one, Emile Planckaert, it says (b. 1906–2006) (lived to be a hundred!). I don't think the "b" (for "born") is needed, but I didn't know if there was some special reason for it to be there. What do you think?

3) In the third paragraph in Society of Jesus, "first Jesuit pope" is in boldface. Probably somebody put it in boldface because they are proud that the present pope is Jesuit, but I don't know if the phrase really should be in boldface. It's not that important of an issue. If you think it can stay, maybe it should. I'll leave it up to you. Well, that's all. CorinneSD (talk) 01:23, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Great questions! Thanks for asking! 1) "Bl" stands for "Blessed" - i.e. someone who has been beatified. However, that is out of date for Peter Faber - he was canonized in December 2013. 2) Yes, we don't need "b." - it's used in many encyclopedia, but not Wikipedia. 3) Yes, I think we could unbold this, but I would consider putting Pope Francis into the lead - he is whata many people would think of now when they think of the Jesuits. StAnselm (talk) 01:32, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I took out the "b." before "1906", but I don't know what to do about updating Peter Faber or putting information about Pope Francis into the lead (other than repeating all the information in that paragraph). Do you think you could take care of these two issues? (I'll learn from seeing what you do.) CorinneSD (talk) 01:39, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, but I just realised that the "Bl Peter Faber" was part of a direct quote, from before he became a saint, so we can't change it. StAnselm (talk) 01:48, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * O.K. I see that you added a sentence about Pope Francis to the lead. I wonder if "pope" at the end of the sentence has to be capitalized. Regarding "Bl Peter Faber", unless one knows that "Bl" is B + lowercase "L" (could also be B + capital i), and means "Blessed", one might be confused by this. What would you think of adding a link at Bl to either the article on Beatification (which I found on the disambig page for "Blessed") or the "Legacy" section in the article on Peter Faber at Peter Faber, where "Blessed Peter Faber" is mentioned? CorinneSD (talk) 02:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm puzzled by something and need your help. I was looking at the latest edit to Talk:Society of Jesus, Even though I saw "mikesj" three-quarters of the way through the comment at Talk:Society of Jesus, I thought all of it was posted by User:BobRyan777. Since those first three quarters were a summary of quite a few edits which I didn't see in Bob's edit, I left him a note. He replied, and you can see his reply. Apparently those first three quarters were posted by someone else, perhaps someone named "mikesj". I figured this was a new editor who didn't know he was supposed to sign with four tildes, so I was going to leave a "Welcome" on his talk page, so I looked in the Revision History for his user name, but I couldn't find it. I can't even find those edits that are summarized so well. What happened? What am I missing? CorinneSD (talk) 22:21, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

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

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 01:09, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Robert Grosseteste
I was just looking at the latest edit to Robert Grosseteste, and I noticed that not only are those added lines unsourced, the second part of that paragraph, and even the next two paragraphs, are unsourced. I don't know if a "citation needed" tag is sufficient. CorinneSD (talk) 22:09, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems to be factual. StAnselm (talk) 22:59, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Even if it is factual, doesn't it have to have citations, not just links to other Wikipedia articles? For the amount of material in this article, there seem to be very few citations. CorinneSD (talk) 23:56, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Sylvestrines
I just finished reading the article on Sylvestrines, and I made a few copy-edits. I have a few concerns about the section Sylvestrines:

1) In the first paragraph:

(a) In the third sentence, I changed "They" to "The Sylvestrines" to make it clearer. I just want to be sure that that is correct.

(b) The fourth sentence reads:


 * Additionally, they have monasteries in the United States, the first being established in Atchison, Kansas', where two intrepid monks arrived in 1910 and served the spiritual needs of the many workers in the coal industry there. [italics added]]

The sixth sentence reads:


 * They were welcomed into the Archdiocese of Detroit in 1928, where they built their first monastery in the country in 1938, now called St. Benedict of Oxford Priory. [italics added]

How can the first Sylvestrine monastery be in Atchison, Kansas, and also in Detroit, Michigan?

3) In the second paragraph:

The second sentence in the second paragraph now reads:


 * In the late 20th century, a foundation was set up in the Philippines and, more recently, in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

You will see in the Revision History that I changed "has also been made" to "was set up". The verb has to be in past tense, but I didn't think the verb "made" was the best writing. I don't know if "was set up" is accurate. If you think another verb (perhaps "was established"?) is better, feel free to change it.

4) In the third paragraph, I changed "serves" to "has served" (because it says, "for twelve years", and it seems as if Dom Michael Kelly is still in that position), but I'm wondering about that phrase "for twelve years". First of all, 2007 plus twelve years is 2019, and it's only 2015 now. Second, as the time goes by, "twelve years" will become inaccurate. What would you think of changing the sentence to say, "Since then (ie., since 2007) he has served in that position..."? CorinneSD (talk) 23:29, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Was this edit to Talk:Christ myth theory intentional?
Hi, I just noticed your edit to Talk:Christ myth theory:. Was this intentional? If so, I don't understand the rationale. Thanks, --Akhilleus (talk) 03:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

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

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 06:02, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Not sure where you want me to go to "discuss this on the Talk Page" -- which talk page where --- before I add it back in ? (I'm still new at some of this) Startarrant (talk) 12:09, 13 February 2015 (UTC)startarrant

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

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

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 01:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

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

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 16:04, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Theonomy Article
StAnselm,

Cool choice for a Username and Thank you for your message.

May I explain the reasoning for adding two distinct branches to Theonomy? Theonomy is a broad term that applies to Christian Reconstructionists and some Covenanters. While they fall under the umbrella terminology as Theonomy or Theonomist, they are each distinct from each other.

Covenanters hold to their theonomic tradition stemming from Puritanism, with strict Sabbatarianism. Reconstructionists hold to their tradition stemming from R. J. Rushdoony, Greg Bahnsen, and Gary North in the 1960's and 1970's. Reconstructionists may or may not hold to a strict Sabbatarianism. I myself am a Christian Reconstructionist, who only follows Bahnsen and dislike North and Rushdoony.

Reconstructionists generally hold to the American Westminster Confession of Faith, while Covenanters hold to the Westminster Confession of Faith 1646.

Let me know what you think. I think it would be pertinent on the Theonomy Page just as a mention in the introduction.

Reformed.missionary (talk) 21:28, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Yes, I guess the article doesn't have to be about CR theonomy. But I wonder whether there any any RP/Covenanter sources calling their position "theonomy"? StAnselm (talk) 21:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Anselm They would.I live four blocks from a Covenanter College, Geneva College. I know many Covenanters who are Theonomists. I will dig up some source material to make a better addition that will include Covenanters in this article. Reformed.missionary (talk) 03:42, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Rachel Gibson from Alias.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Rachel Gibson from Alias.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 22:05, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Franciscan
Hello, StAnselm -- I hope you are well. I thought you would have responded by now to my post of 7 February about the Sylvestrines article, above, even if just to let me know you don't want to bother with it. If you prefer I not bring my concerns to you at all, I won't. Since User:Esoglou was site banned, I don't know any other editor to ask about articles on these types of subject. If you have time, would you review a number of edits made to Franciscan? Here is the first of them:. CorinneSD (talk) 18:17, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Interview for Signpost?
Hi StAnselm, you seem to be an active WikiProject Christianity contributor, so I was wondering if you or any of your fellow project members would be willing to participate in an interview for the Signpost. Please see the questions here: Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/WikiProject desk/Interviews. Thanks!  Go  Phightins  !  03:05, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Ping one more time. We would like to run the interview in this week's edition, so if you could comment by tomorrow evening, that would be excellent. Thanks!  Go  Phightins  !  20:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I won't be able to help. Actually, I've never been a member of the project. StAnselm (talk) 20:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:American actresses of German descent


A tag has been placed on Category:American actresses of German descent, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate,. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Nymf (talk) 04:48, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Restorationism and Peter Masters
Thanks for you past help with numerous edits on other pages, often sagaciously, but we disagree on this, and I have taken the liberty of asking a third opinion. I appreciate this is non binding, but I'd be grateful for your participation. Cpsoper (talk) 22:01, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's fine. I have limited internet at the moment. In terms of what more I want, it would be a reliable secondary source saying that Masters was opposed to Restorationism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.80.32.206 (talk) 03:24, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/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, - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:42, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration case request
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests/Case and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted in most arbitration pages please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, It appears the filing party did not notify the named parties. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 13:38, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration case request declined
Hi StAnselm, the Arbitration Committee has declined the WikiBullying arbitration case request, which you were listed as a party to. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 15:33, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Redemption
Hi Anselm,

I noticed that you reverted my removal of the hatnote in the "Christianity" section of Redemption (theology). According to Wikipedia's guideline about hatnotes linking to articles that are related to the topic, hatnotes "are not intended to link to topics that are simply related to each other, or to a specific aspect of a general topic". The naming of Jesus as Redeemer (the subject of the Redeemer (Christianity) article) is related to the subject of that section (Christian views on redemption), and is, for that reason, not an appropriate hatnote, but rather an appropriate link to include in the body text of the section. Would you be willing to allow me to remove the hatnote again if I added the link to the body text of the section?

Neelix (talk) 14:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Gulf Finance House


The article Gulf Finance House has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * not apparently notable

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.  DGG ( talk ) 04:54, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Peter May
Do not re-add declined speedy deletion tags to articles. Controversial moves can be discussed at WP:RM. Wily D 10:43, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I fear you have completely misunderstood what WP:RMUM says. StAnselm (talk) 18:40, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Rev. Dr. John Hall
Thanks for edit and corrections on John Hall article Ted Sidpickle (talk) 06:20, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

John Hall (Presbyterian pastor)
Just to let you know I moved your entry about Bolton Hall in the above article to a different section, but it is still in the article.

Ted Sidpickle (talk) 08:01, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Youthwork magazine cover.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Youthwork magazine cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently 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. --B-bot (talk) 02:28, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

You removed my edit!
Why? Shouldn't you have discussed it with me or something first? You just said something about some letters or something. Absolutely nobody (talk) 23:53, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I was going to explain it on your talk page, but you had a note there telling me not to. StAnselm (talk) 06:18, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Church of England in South Africa.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Church of England in South Africa.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently 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. --B-bot (talk) 02:15, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm confused (AFL articles)
(Jumping in ahead of ) The issue of redirecting the various AFL trophy articles to a single list has been raised at WT:AFL, with no objections. No one has suggested deletion of the articles (and they are obviously plausible redirect titles), so I don't see why AfD would be necessary – what Aspirex has done is pretty standard practice. I assume there is some sort of misunderstanding involved…?  IgnorantArmies  (talk)  09:30, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, well, I object. I think they all (or most of them, or some of them) should remain as articles. StAnselm (talk) 09:42, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll deal with most of this tomorrow; but in advance of that I'd like you to explain your justification for unmerging Showdown Medal and [{Marcus Ashcroft Medal]], given the content of those pages is entirely duplicated on Showdown (AFL) and QClash and is more readily interpreted when put in the contexts of those larger pages. Aspirex (talk) 12:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, (a) the subjects are notable enough for their own articles, and having the articles is helpful to readers, and (b) there was no consensus to redirect. I can understand not wanting to use AfD if you want to keep the redirect, but you still need to have a merge proposal on each talk page. StAnselm (talk) 21:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * We had an edit conflict as I was bundling the other twelve or so articles into the Dyer-Richard nomination; make sure what you wrote is reflective of your views on the entire bundle. I'll be putting merger proposals on the three local derby articles separately. Aspirex (talk) 00:42, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Removal of links
Hi StAnselm, I have reverted your changes per WP:BRD. Feel free to discuss in the respective talk pages. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  22:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I was reverting a recent addition, so BRD would suggest that it stays out until there is consensus to include it. StAnselm (talk) 23:53, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:NumismatistMagCoverApril03.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:NumismatistMagCoverApril03.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently 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. --B-bot (talk) 17:37, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Names
Just a note, if you look at the discussion on MOS:IDENTITY, you will see that "nouns" was intended to include names, which are proper nouns. Somebody objected to the redundancy and decided to simplify the language. I mean, if you use the old name but have to use the new pronouns, that's clearly contradictory! Skyerise (talk) 22:49, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Banner of Truth.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Banner of Truth.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently 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. --B-bot (talk) 02:15, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Philip Benedict
Hi StAnselm Do you have any thoughts on this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Summary_of_dispute_by_5.87.161.220? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.161.20.219 (talk) 05:36, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Phoebe McQueen.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Phoebe McQueen.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently 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. --B-bot (talk) 02:24, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Cultural Anthropology journal cover.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Cultural Anthropology journal cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently 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. --B-bot (talk) 02:20, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Sabbath in Christianity
Hi,

You may have seen my recent editing on this article. I have found that some of the descriptions and characterizations previously in the article (and others related to the Sabbath) missed the mark, and was misled by some of it initially, not then having much exposure to Sabbatarianism. As I've continued investigating and improving, I find in the article:


 * 1) that the Puritans were considered "first-day Sabbatarians",
 * 2) which is separate from "seventh-day Sabbatarians" like the Adventists
 * 3) and most everyone else, who are "non-Sabbatarians" (?) Or are they? That article does not really describe the positions of Catholicism or Orthodoxy - probably just more mis-characterizations.

So, my question for you is primarily this: are the Puritans really considered Sabbatarians at all? From a Calvinist or Reformed perspective, that is. The thing is, they are so different from the Adventists! Puritan fervor was for stricter observance, specifically Sunday worship, but also in rest, and always within the context of Christian law, never with respect to reinstating Mosaic Law. Yes? From what I've dug up, if the Puritans are to be considered Sabbatarian, then their kind of Sabbatarianism is of a different order from Adventists, not really two types of the same thing at all. From my perspective within Orthodoxy, the Puritans don't really look like a group I would call "Sabbatarians", but simply first-day Christians who took a somewhat different (and stricter) view of Christian law.

Comments on my view? And what is your experience in the way the term "Sabbatarianism" is applied generally in Protestant circles, especially Calvinist or Reformed?

Thanks much for any perspectives you can give me! It will help me to sort out how to talk about these things in the Sabbath articles as I continue. Evensteven (talk) 18:35, 27 June 2015 (UTC)


 * P.S. The reason I ask for perspectives is that several obvious sources of info out there all have different answers: Brittanica, Catholic Encyclopedia, Mirriam-Webster dictionary, Dictionary.com. There seems to be a lot of shifting sand, and I figure the way the various churches classify and characterize things is the way to make the issues clearest. Evensteven (talk) 21:45, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Speaking as an ordinary Christian and cultural observer, "Sabbatarian" is still used in Reformed circles to describe those who get mad if you watch TV on Sundays. But, yes - it is very different from the Sabbatarianism of other groups. The terminology should probably be clarified. StAnselm (talk) 04:57, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! What a marvelously concise way of getting to the heart of the matter! Evensteven (talk) 05:05, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Christian views of marriage
In your recent revert on Christian views of marriage, rather than trying to address the longstanding POV issues cited on the talk page, you:

1. Removed a POV tag without discussion.

2. Referred to another's edits as "massively POV" while restoring for instance a sentence claiming that Jesus made a particular claim. Rather than that Jesus is recorded in the New Testament to have made a particular claim. I can't imagine a worse POV error than that. You can't find a "massively POV" statement to cite, and you didn't cite any on the talk page. So it's your edit not mine that's "POV".

3. Removed clearly factual statements with references.

4. Could have, but did not, improve the hatnote distinguishing "Biblical" from "Christian" views, which you must acknowledge are required, from this reference alone:

5. Did all this with a clearly Christian-POV user name "StAnselm". Could you be advertising your pro-Christian advocacy and ideology any more clearly?

6. Removed utterly innocuous factual statements about divorce that are clearly referenced in other articles in Wikipedia. As the article stands it pretends that divorce was always permitted on compassionate grounds, which is just plain historical denial. It's grossly POV to deny that divorce was forbidden until the 20th century by most Christian sects, nor that it continues to carry stigma, guilt and shame, all that must be acknowledged clearly in the passages about divorce.

7. Removed distinctions between Christian sects that do not agree on key questions like divorce or same-sex marriage. As if the majority view must be correct within Christianity.

8. Removed distinctions between civil and religious marriage and the extremely brief historical mention of the Theodosian Code and modern same sex marriage rulings in former Roman Empire countries.

You need to seriously reconsider what you call "POV" and cease to interfere destructively with attempts to take an article already acknowledged POV (in its own talk page) into proper form. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.11.95.94 (talk) 19:13, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from personal attacks. Calling me a "fanatic" as you did here does not help to build the encyclopedia. Please start a discussion on the article talk page indicating what you think is POV about the article in its current form, and what you would like to change. StAnselm (talk) 19:21, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

The Bible and rape
Thanks for taking a look at my article. I like the restructuring you made, but I find the refimprove tag confusing, especially because there are currently no citation needed tags in the article. If you could clear up what needs work in this regard, I would be happy to fix it. Thank you! :) BenLinus  1214 talk 02:48, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * See the talk page section I started. The introductory paragraph in the "Analysis, interpretation and criticism" needs new references - from scholarly publications rather than magazine op-eds! StAnselm (talk) 03:07, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Harassment
Please do not post harassing templates on my page. You have harassed me in that past. Basileias (talk) 05:15, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe I came off a little harsh, but right in the middle of adding the ref a revert wiped it right as I was saving, having me to start over adding the ref. I was not introducing new information. The edit I was restoring has been in the article for some time. It was not something new I was entering. Basileias (talk) 05:35, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Please look at the talk-page
to Capital punishment. I put it to You that there's nothing more interesting about the death penalty only becasuse the four lagest nations uses it. Please see the talk-side. All the best Boeing720 (talk) 23:25, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you!
We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways: Sign up now Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
 * Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
 * Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
 * Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
 * Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
 * Research coordinators: run reference services

My plea
It appears that he is still at it. So, if you spot another of his socks, please do let me know. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:06, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Religious leaders vs clergy
Personally I'm not fond of the current naming either, but in the WP category structure "Protestant religious leaders" is being used as a synonym/replacement term of "Protestant clergy", for the reason that not all Protestant ministers like the term "clergy". I'm now doing no more than adding a by nationality tree since so far this was lacking. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:54, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Where was that decided? I would have thought if there was a consensus to merge than it would be done by a bot. StAnselm (talk) 08:58, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Because many Protestant denominations have had prominent "lay" leaders - especially churches in the Presbyterian/Reformed tradition. StAnselm (talk) 09:01, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I know, so I guess currently the subcats are mostly ordained clergy while the single articles are likely to be filled by lay leaders. See []. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:05, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, it's fine for clergy to be a subcategory of religious leaders. But it's not a synonym - and if you think it should be, please use CFD. StAnselm (talk) 09:09, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Meanwhile I found the CfD in which it has been decided: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_June_5. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:33, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Feel free to contribute in Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_July_11. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:03, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Tullian Tchividjian cropped.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Tullian Tchividjian cropped.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Warfieldian ( talk ) 19:15, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Sodom and Gomorrah
Paragraph 1[edit] I posted the following end of the sentence (in quotes): Historically, the passage has often been interpreted within Judaism and Christianity as a punishment for homosexuality, "however, various interpreters indicate this is irrelevant as a homosexual gang rape does not condemn all gays any more than a heterosexual gang rape is an indictment of all straights."

My reasons for this addition:

1. Regarding gang rape, this is a valid observation by a scholar, Walter Wink, who has written on this topic for at least two decades as well as a public speaker on the Bible and homosexuality, Matthew Vines, who has made the same observation.

2. The beginning of the sentence acknowledges the traditional interpretation of punishment for homosexuality.

I deleted the following sentence: "but the passage has historically been interpreted within Judaism and Christianity as a punishment for homosexuality due to the interpretation that the men of Sodom wished to rape the angels who retrieved Lot.[4]."

My reasons for this deletion:

1. Though the beginning of the sentence is virtually the same, I wished to avoid a run-on sentence.

2. The explanation that punishment for homosexuality for rape is due to the men wishing to rape the angels is contradicted by the fact that the rape in question is a gang rape. Moreover, as indicated elsewhere in this section, none of the early explanatory material in the Old Testament held that the offense in question was homosexuality.

I am confident the original post is both valid and pertinent, maintaining a NPOV, so it should be included. As Wikipedia is a collegial community, I am open to inclusion of another explanation for the traditional view. I will withhold editing of this pericope for 24 hours, awaiting a response which will resolve this dispute.

Paragraph 2:

I posted the middle material (in quotes): While the Jewish prophets spoke only of lack of charity as the sin of Sodom, "the gradually unfolding sexual interpretation of "Sodom" became the basis, beginning in the 13th century, of the word sodomy," still a legal synonym for homosexual and non-procreative sexual acts, particularly anal or oral sex.

My reasons for this addition:

1. The sexual interpretation of Sodom, as noted in the first paragraph, was not contemporaneous with Gen. 19. It was a later development which gradually unfolded.

2. The dictionary cited indicates the first known usage of "sodomy" was the 13th century. So this edit is consistent with the material cited.

3. Note that I did not edit the first or last third of the sentence. This, together with an appropriate edit, indicates I maintained a NPOV.

The middle portion deleted from the above sentence is "the exclusively sexual interpretation became so prevalent that the name "Sodom" became the basis of the word sodomy,"

My reasons for this deletion:

1. The time for the origin of the word "sodomy" is not given.

2. The implication of this pericope is that the several other understandings of the Gen. 19 narrative are irrelevant (for example, Lot's explanation that the guests--in accordance with strict rules for hospitality--"have come under the protection of my roof" (Gen. 19:8).

3. There is no source verifying there was an "exclusively sexual interpretation" during the 13th century. This possibility is doubtful as the Old Testament scriptures cite hospitality, social justice and other non-sexual reasons--and Jesus cites hospitality.

For these reasons, I believe the edit should stand. I will wait 24 hours for a reply if a resolution is sought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quoflector (talk • contribs) 00:54, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Killing of Cecil the lion for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Killing of Cecil the lion is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Killing of Cecil the lion until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) Jesus Christ loves you!  13:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Next Australian constitutional referendum listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Next Australian constitutional referendum. Since you had some involvement with the Next Australian constitutional referendum redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- Tavix ( talk ) 06:35, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Cecil (lion) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cecil (lion) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Cecil (lion) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 22:01, 31 July 2015 (UTC)