Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prophecies about Pope John Paul II


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   delete. j⚛e deckertalk 17:22, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Prophecies about Pope John Paul II

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Original research/synthesis. The article cites various poems, speeches etc and postulates that they're prophecies about Pope John Paul II. The conclusion that they're prophecies about him is not drawn in any of the cited sources, but synthesized in the article itself. Kolbasz (talk) 14:45, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Reply from Jakub Szymański
 * No synthesis. No original research.
 * And now fulfilled terms as for sources and footnotes.Jakub Szymański (talk) 16:48, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * As for your mantra:
 * "The article cites various poems, speeches etc and postulates that they're prophecies about Pope John Paul II. The conclusion that they're prophecies about him is not drawn in any of the cited sources, but synthesized in the article itself".


 * There is now following number of cited sources, who explicity connect cited "poems" with Person Pope John Paul II as Prophecies about Him:
 * internet 4, books 12, papers 3.
 * Do this will melt down scepticism of yours or there is nothing which can crush him? Because you are per se prussian soldier ?Jakub Szymański (talk) 14:50, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. As above. Only the author of the article has made a connection between the "prophecies" (actually many aren't even that) and JPII, and those connections are in any case tenuous. It's a a devotional essay. Absolute WP:OR. DeCausa (talk) 15:57, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Reply from Jakub Szymański
 * Dear Ignorant DeCausa - please check article now. And You before next time will put forward objections, first You learn Polish language and check all matter more profoundly, and not only on surfaces of mind and imagination.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakub Szymański (talk • contribs) 17:09, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * And as for "devotional essay" - first encyclopedia on the world was writen by St Isidore of Seville... but do You even know about that, dear Iberian?
 * Writting about religious matters not neccessary mean that something is devotional, but that you write about spiritual matters and angle of view is little different... (but still in norm of rational thinking).
 * Fides ratio quarens, puer... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.25.163.199 (talk • contribs) 17:56, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, Jakub, although I'm not an Iberian, according to our article on him it seems that Isidore of Seville would not have engaged in original research in the way you have. From the article:
 * ..."in fact, in the majority of his works, including the Origines, he contributes little more than the mortar which connects excerpts from other authors, as if he was aware of his deficiencies and had more confidence in the stilus maiorum than his own" his translator Katherine Nell MacFarlane remarks.
 * You need to emulate him (apart from the potential copyright violation).DeCausa (talk) 19:26, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Reply from Jakub Szymański
 * Yes I know works of St Isidore in latin. And He is really Master in finding and making sentences from works of other Peoples, but not only, He is more then this. He is probably The Best in this in whole world. But believe to Me, this is Gift. And He also adds there His Own Material with virtuosity.
 * When I made reference to Him, I had on mind rather this that He, as ecclesiastic writer not had any problem with construction of first book knowledge encyclopedic, i.e. Etymologies.
 * As for "Iberian". If there would be writen: De Causa - of course this have own meaning. But: DeCausa - sounds iberian, do You not think so?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakub Szymański (talk • contribs) 21:34, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No change, despite claims by article's author here and elsewhere to have resolved issues. Still SYNTH/ESSAY. DeCausa (talk) 10:49, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Reply from Jakub Szymański
 * You are wonderful, one on who we always can count. If there is some club in which they believe that Earth is flat, you definite should be on list in such place...Jakub Szymański (talk) 15:06, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. That's so cute. Delete as totally unencyclopedic per nom and DeCausa. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:55, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Reply from Jakub Szymański
 * Ignorance is a blessing. Dear Konieczny You are good example of this. Article is still under construction, but as for now holds Wiki standards. Check again now.
 * Besides you should see articles in category: prophecy. I don't think that they are made in better style. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakub Szymański (talk • contribs) 16:53, 19 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Putting your personal attacks aside, if you want to improve the article over time, you can ask for it to be userfied. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  01:58, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Reply from Jakub Szymański
 * No personal attacks. As Pole basiclly you should know these stories at last as from hearing...
 * And I'm senstitive to remarks, i.e. I try improve this what was indicated as "gap".
 * So check this time, I add on 19 May next additional references (8 with 10 sources). So You can check this for yourself, and let to know to some peoples from other parts of world that infos included in article have strong base. Jakub Szymański (talk) 08:49, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Wholly WP:SYNTH. Devotional rather than neutral in both tone and content.--Trystan (talk) 00:09, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:50, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:50, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Reply from Jakub Szymański
 * Dear Trystan
 * When you advertise yourself as gender promotor, I have strong conviction that your opinion is not fully meritorical and as I suspect very non-neutral. Because gender is ideology, so you seems to be also: devotional in this way.
 * As for article, he is rather: inspirational.
 * You should rethink all matter, and let Me know. If you have some remarks about content of article, share with this, but you should indicate exactly what part...
 * Best regards dear Trystan (and Isolde, perhaps). Jakub Szymański (talk) 10:49, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete as original research ąnd a personal essay (WP:NOT). — Kpalion(talk) 11:07, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Reply from Jakub Szymański
 * In which part this Article is original research? Or maybe Saint Barnstar you are little jealous? If you are not lazy go through all footnotes in fully (in which Polish language should help you) and then back with remarks. Because if you have abilities and not use them in logical thinking... So in your case investigation this is a matter of decency...Jakub Szymański (talk) 18:37, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Reply from Jakub Szymański
 * Boy Kpalion, you also make mental mistakes in other issues. For example: after partition of Poland there was not "Polish state". So if you named heads of "Polish state" some russian aggressors, this is mental aberration (this was only russian cover for "sweetening" of lack of Polish independence, and this is russian term, but not Polish). Rescius called this situation: Civitatis aliquod ornamentum (and may be even less then this) - but no Polish state. Do you have some lack of identity also?Jakub Szymański (talk) 08:35, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - Original POV essay, exemplified by the line "Yet his Pontificate came in time when Poland was in the darkness of Russian communism, but this Pope brought the country to the ‘higher place’ of Freedom." Carrite (talk) 16:53, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Reply from Jakub Szymański
 * Dear Carrite you have some right, but with this one line "Yet his Pontificate came in time when Poland was in the darkness of Russian communism, but this Pope brought the country to the ‘higher place’ of Freedom." - I've tried to explain fulfilment of prophecy in then situation. But as for prophecy itself and recognition of its contents there are strong evidences in footnotes (if you want little longer discussion, I can explain this to you more profoundly). Besides: I can also show to you some similar lines made by other people (i.e. "POV") in other Wiki articles... Besides: this one line give 2 "verses" from 72 "verses" full text. So if you feel yourself strong, maybe you should try with this what left? Because this one (or 2) is little to little for judge whole thing... And as for "POV" - I'm always speak to malcontents: you should read the footnotes. And personaly I speak to you: you already forgot, how it was in history?
 * And as for this one line, you could very easy read recent footnote 29 (i.e. interview with Mr Ascherson...) besides many others, which are in cited books. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakub Szymański (talk • contribs) 20:05, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - Jakub S.: Stop badgering people. Carrite (talk) 16:53, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Reply from Jakub Szymański
 * Dear Carrite, I find any pleasure in badgering people. I try just understand why they behave like they behave. So this is more philosophical matter (Socrateian you can name it). Something far above "badgering". But not everybody can catch this...Jakub Szymański (talk) 20:05, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No, Jakub, you are not trying to "understand why they behave like they behave". That is very clear. You are making no effort whatsoever to understand Wikipedia's policies. Cut out the "you are all too stupid to understand why I am right" attitude, and try to grasp that Wikipedia has certain rules on how to write an article and it is highly unlikely that you were born with the innate knowledge of how to do it. The quickest way to learn how to do it is to listen, really listen, to the advice and criticism offered to you. Otherwise, you are just wasting your time. DeCausa (talk) 19:56, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Reply from Jakub Szymański

My dear friend DeCausa. First of all... Your supposition about "attitude" is not very in target... I'm not try to prove that people are "stupid". In fact I think that every human being have his own dignity... But, it is worthy listening to the other people, such like in this case...  Because in words, used by you, you yourself probably revealed your very own "problems/complexes". If you feel yourself "stupid" - I think that You shouldn't. Because I think that inteligence you have  and hunger for the knowledge and personal development. So you be calm and happy. Everything will be OK. Because by these yours attitudes, you are in place like Wiki, where is some mentality spirit, which attracted people with intelligence. So don't worry, you have hunger, which don't will be satisfied, till not you find mentaly, what you looking for... And this, about what you speak, should be rather understand in context, for example like... Wiki  has some "gaps", because is written by people, who also had  "gaps". But everybody have some "gaps". You and I also... But also I have better knowledge about something, and you have better knowledge something other. And people by that are also in richness of spirituality and mentality. I mean relations. As for "innate knowledge"... Thomas Aquinas told that only pure substances (i.e. Angels) have innate knowledge. And according to Aristotle every man is born as white page... so we all must acquire knowledge with great effort. And I assure You that My effort in acquiring knowledge in Wiki (specialy technical) was in labors. As for criticism, I'm listening... but only in frontiers of reason. Time this is not wasted, because this is goodness, which be fruitful also in researching other people. And above all I met such noble Persons like You, for example... Jakub Szymański (talk) 22:31, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.