User talk:ADM/Archive 12

Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Copying within Wikipedia

Hi. It appears that you copied or moved text from Catholic sex abuse cases into a number of others, including Ecclesiastical response to Catholic sex abuse cases. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to make a note in an edit summary at the source page as well. The attribution has been provided for the articles you've created from this source, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I was about to add a template at the back of the page, as I often do, but I had since noticed that somebody had already done it before me, i.e.

As for copyrights, I was not aware that the original page entitled Catholic sex abuse cases was suffering from copyright problems. If this matter has leaked onto the more precise entry, then it would be appropriate to deal with the problem in a separate way.

ADM (talk)

I added it there myself, 10 minutes ago. :) [1]. I have not yet gotten around to all the others. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The other articles which you did not attribute, by the way, are Debate on the causes of clerical child abuse, Doe v. Bennett, Sexual abuse scandal in St. John's archdiocese, Media coverage of Catholic sex abuse cases, and 20th century history of the Catholic Church in the United States. Please remember that the template is only one step. It's necessary to include a note in the edit summary, with a direct link to the source article. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I think at the beginning, I separated some articles and did not atribute them clearly enough, because I was not really used to doing so. However, in recent times, you can easily tell that I have attributed them much more frequently and systematically. So, the ones you are pointing out are more likely to come from several months ago when I wasn't completely sure about the procedure. [2][3][4][5][6][7][8] ADM (talk) 23:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad you're getting the hang of procedures. But, please, do remember the edit summary requirement. I don't see it, for instance, here. That step is essential; as Wikipedia:Splitting says, it should not be omitted. Can you go back and add the edit summary to those you've already tagged? Oh, and it's fine if you want to copy this over to my talk page, but it's not necessary. As my talk header says, I'm watching your page. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Curial response to Catholic sex abuse cases, I left a small message here. [9] Isn't that sufficient ? ADM (talk) 23:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

What's wanted is something to tell people who look at the history of the article that you didn't write the text. The history is where we keep track of who wrote what. The recommended language is something like "split content from [[article name]]" or "copied content from [[article name]]". I usually add "which see for attribution," but that's just a flourish. :) The problem with saying "see article" is that people might think you're just referring them for more information. Also, the article should be a direct link, for clickthrough. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

National Leadership Roundtable on Church Management

I'll consider this request tomorrow. Right now, I'm using someone else's computer, and to ensure that my password can't be stolen, I'm using my alternate account; because it doesn't have administrative rights, I can't help you until I'm back on my computer and can use my main account safely. Nyttend backup (talk) 06:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello, ADM. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion/Current_requests.
Message added 20:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The article is also a copyright violation of http://www.futurechurch.org/jtcm/links.htm. Your best bet is to find independent, reliable sources that show the notability of the organization, then create a draft at the article incubator to get some feedback. That way you can avoid the promotional language of the original. HTH

Okay, thanks, I did not realize the copyright problem, as it was not mentioned in the original motives for deletion. I will maybe try to reconstruct the page somehow without any such difficulties. ADM (talk) 20:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't realize you're an experienced editor, so forgive the article incubator suggestion. But in short, the text you split out is a copyvio, so we can't restore it. Any new article will need to be written from scratch. Cheers! --Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Sexual_abuse_scandal_in_Selwyn_House_School - NPOV issues

As the creator and major contributor to the article Sexual_abuse_scandal_in_Selwyn_House_School You may wish to provide your opinion regarding the NPOV issue regarding the naming and its existance as a stand alone article. Talk:Sexual_abuse_scandal_in_Selwyn_House_School. MM 207.69.137.43 (talk) 19:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the title fits perfectly with the existing category about school sex abuse scandals. Many of these types of events involve a large number of people over an extended period of time, with multiple arrests, inquiries and trials, therefore it is more than appropriate to refer to it as an abuse scandal of sexual nature. Besides, there are very similar article titles like this that were written for Catholic sex abuse cases, such as the sexual abuse scandal in Boston archdiocese for example. ADM (talk) 01:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: Votes by IPs

The IPs could be clones of registered users, therefore the common practice is to declare that they are not allowed to vote. That's how it was the last time I checked, and I do not believe the rule has changed. ADM (talk) 13:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The link I provided in my edit summary is quite clear about it (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_discuss_an_AfD) - unregistered accounts are welcome. The comment of the IP might be discounted by the closer, but that is it. If you have reasons to believe that the IP is a sockpuppet initiate a sockpuppet investigation, otherwise the IP could be as much a sockpuppet as I, you or anyone else commenting in the deletion discussion could be. Please self-revert the strike-through. Thanks. Pantherskin (talk) 14:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

It says that they are welcome to contribute to the discussion, however it doesn't say that they can vote. I interpret it as disallowing their yeas/nays in the vast majority of cases, i.e. almost anytime there are enough registered users around. ADM (talk) 14:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

No, AfD are not votes. You are right that sometimes unregistered users are not allowed to vote, for example at WP:RFA, but at AfD their comments are allowed and in fact welcome. Pantherskin (talk) 14:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

NPA

Your comment here is unacceptable and untrue. You need to apologise and refactor this personal attack. Rhomb (talk) 22:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

You shouldn't doubt the sincerity of my comments, and there is no point at all of apologizing if this amounts to a certain type of moral hypocrisy. Besides, your censorship of my comments violates the principle of freedom of speech and arguably goes against the policies of Wikipedia. ADM (talk) 03:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

RE;

if you mean Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lima then you should be aware that I have had nothing to do with dismissing the case, in fact, it's currently pending CU. If you didn't mean that case then please can you clarify as to exactly what case you did mean. Regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 21:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

If you have nothing to do with the pending SPI/Lima case, then I can only say thanks anyways. ADM (talk) 21:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Mandingo Negro

The article Mandigo Negro has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Title is obvious typo. Is this term notable? Article does not provide origin of term (is it a commonly used term, or someone's neologism)? The section "Backlash against the castration of blacks" is about castration, not a backlash against castration. "Today" section not sourced. Article is extremely male-centered (no mention of stereotypes of black women in here?). Calling Rushton "the best known" racist pseudoscientist reeks of recentism, what about the ones in the 1800s? Finally, this article is apparently a POV fork from another article.

Whatever your impressions of the content or title of the article, please note that I initially split it from stereotypes of African Americans, a page that I was never really involved in to begin with. So, I merely thought that it would be an interesting side-entry compared to other similar articles such as Mammy archetype, Magical Negro, blackface and Sambo (racial term). ADM (talk) 23:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me. You may remove the PROD template if you wish (for example, if you or another editor improves it enough so that the problems I mentioned are dealt with, or if you disagree with my assessment of the page). Stonemason89 (talk) 01:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see you already did, and you have cleaned up the article, taking care of the problems I mentioned. Well done! Stonemason89 (talk) 01:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)