User talk:StAnselm/2015b

2015b

All Pages:

1 -  2 -  3 -  4 -  5 -  6 -  7 -  8 -  9 -  10 -  11 -  12 -  13 -  14 -  15 -  16 -  17 -  18 -  19 -  20 -  21 -  22 -  23 -  24 -  ... (up to 100)

Wikipedia Library Past Masters account check-in

Hello StAnselm,

You are receiving this message because you have a one-year subscription to Past Masters through the Wikipedia Library. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:

• Please make sure that you can still log in to your Past Masters account. If you are having trouble let me know.
• Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, to include citations with links on Wikipedia. Links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate it if you filled out this short survey. If you would prefer to contact me directly about your experience with this resource, please leave a message on my talk page.

Thank you, Wikipedia Library Past Masters account coordinator HazelAB (talk) 12:56, 4 August 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cecil (lion) (2nd nomination) 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. Comet1440 (talk) 20:33, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Copying within wikipedia

Hey, please check out WP:COPYWITHIN, if you're copying from one article to another you need to include a wikilink to the source article in the edit summary. Might want to revert and redo with proper attribution. Fyddlestix (talk) 21:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I thought I did (here and here). Which edit do you mean? (I moved stuff within Planned Parenthood 2015 undercover videos controversy - perhaps that had been previously copied from Planned Parenthood.) StAnselm (talk) 21:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Wow that is weird - for some reason my browser didn't show them as hyperlinks the first time I looked. I just reloaded the page, though, and it's clearly a link, so no problem. My apologies! Fyddlestix (talk) 21:43, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

Hey buddy, heard you have a bit of a sweet tooth! XOXOXOXOXO Sphygmographist (talk) 04:42, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 12:13, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Scholars and Theologians

Any interest in a more targeted co-operation on such articles. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:49, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. I see you've started a few articles that were on my list - good work! StAnselm (talk) 05:17, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:Presbytery flags.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Presbytery flags.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status and its source. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously.

If you did not create this work entirely yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. You will also need to state under what licensing terms it was released. Please refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file.

Please add this information by editing the image description page. If the necessary information is not added within the next seven days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:09, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Calvinbeza

Dear friend. Please help me. I was doing my work to improve the Reformed churches wiki articles. I knew I did mistakes, but I wanted to help Wiki. Please unblock me, Anna Frodesiak revert all my works. These are good articles. She doing this because he hates me, and the Reformed churches

HELP ME

I don't hate you or the Reformed churches. This is about copy pasting text from church websites. They don't want that. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:04, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notice - abortion

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Abortion, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

--slakr^\ talk / 04:04, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Licensing

I think you might be wrong about the licensing on the Duggar photo. Unless you know something I don't and hasn't been determined yet at Commons [1]. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:01, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what the folks at Commons decide. The flickr license is BY-NC, which does not allow for commercial use. StAnselm (talk) 04:10, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to need something more than an acronym to understand what you are saying. The photo is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic, which, best I can tell, is permitted. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, not it's not - it is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial. (BY represents "Attribution" - you have to say whose picture it is - while NC stands for "non-commercial".) StAnselm (talk) 04:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I did give attribution. Non-commercial: Wikipedia is non-commercial, correct? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia is highly commercial. ;) For a photo to be regarded as "free", it has to be available for commercial use. StAnselm (talk) 04:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, you learn something every day. I thought that because Wikipedia is a non-profit/.org that it would not fall into the commercial category. Okay - thanks for taking the time to explain. Appreciated. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:43, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, in this particular instance it's not about Wikipedia making money, it's about other people potentially making money from Wikipedia's content. StAnselm (talk) 04:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Ah, yes -- that certainly makes sense. Never thought about it before. Thanks again for the education. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Far Eastern Bible College logo.gif

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Far Eastern Bible College logo.gif. 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) 02:22, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

hi do you have an email i can reach you at? thanks! 119.74.56.95 (talk) 13:24, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

No. If you create an account, you will be able to email me through Wikipedia. StAnselm (talk) 20:01, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Date format

Hi, thanks for your work. Please remember that Australia-related articles have dmy, not md,y format. Tony (talk) 08:32, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Umm, are you sure you've got the right person? In which edit did I use mdy? StAnselm (talk) 08:40, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Changing log entries after the fact

Edits like this one on an arbitration case page are bound to raise eyebrows. If you think these entries are poorly worded, take it up with the person who left the comment, or ask for relief at WP:AE or from Arbcom. Modifying someone else's comments technically violates WP:TPO, since you didn't use strikeouts or sign your own name to the changes. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 01:17, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. I certainly didn't think it violated WP:TPO, which specifically allows for removing personal attacks. The list should not be used as a forum for attacking other editors. Now, I understand the notification process has changed, and the suggested template at the top of the list is, in fact, deprecated. Does this have any implications for the maintenance of the list? StAnselm (talk) 01:42, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

See WP:AC/DS for the current system. In my opinion the old entries should be left in place, unless you can convince a consensus of editors that they contain personal attacks. Do you see people routinely removing personal attacks while leaving no note that they made an edit? EdJohnston (talk) 03:03, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

What was the old system, exactly? I see that it says "Notifications and warnings issued prior to the introduction of the current procedure on 3 May 2014 are not sanctions and remain on the individual case page logs." Is there a difference between a notification and a warning? Did they imply fault? Did they have to have a reason attached to their delivery? If not, why isn't it merely a simple list of names? StAnselm (talk) 03:26, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

If allowed, this has huge consequences. Now the reason for the block isn't declared, so the listing makes no sense. This should not be allowed, neither removal nor striking. If it's allowed, then change the policy so it forbids listing of any reason for anyone, and if a reason isn't legitimate enough for listing, then the block itself is dubious and should be undone. This is really stretching WP:TPO beyond its intention. It's not even a personal attack, but a civil description of the justification for the block. We aren't allowed to go around removing everything people write about us that we feel is wrong. It's better to engage them and get them to do it themselves. If not, well....personal attacks often reflect badly on the perpetrator, not so much on the one attacked. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:03, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand; this is not a block log at all, it is merely a notification log. So, yes - I guess I do think that all the reasons should be removed. StAnselm (talk) 17:00, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

That decreases clarity here, and we need that. A list of diffs is of limited value. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:51, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Surely the list serves no purpose beyond listing the editors who have been informed of the editing restrictions, and can therefore be presumed to be aware of them. It has been made very clear that there is no fault required for an editor to be informed, and so there is no reason to attach a fault to the listing. StAnselm (talk) 00:25, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Beowulf board game.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Beowulf board game.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

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 "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. Stefan2 (talk) 22:53, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

About James Faulkner image

Hi.. Actually I did not know that the mage has been deleted. I recently edited the international arwards column of all Australian cricketers and in Faulkner's article, there was an error in the codes of his introduction. So, I did some edits on that intro as well, and if your image has been deleted, apologise from you...

Thank You..Gihan Jayaweera (talk)

Proposed deletion of List of VFL/AFL players who have played with three or more clubs

The article List of VFL/AFL players who have played with three or more clubs has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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.

Orphaned non-free image File:Patrick Jane.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Patrick Jane.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) 02:40, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Failed Bible prophecies

Hello StAnselm. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Failed Bible prophecies, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: I do not think this qualifies as a G10 attack page. Let the AfD take care of it. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 18:53, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, sure. StAnselm (talk) 18:55, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party Logo.png

A tag has been placed on File:Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party Logo.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

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 "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. Stefan2 (talk) 12:00, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Changes to Doug Wilson Wikipedia

Hi, re your message:

Hello, I'm StAnselm. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Douglas Wilson (theologian), but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! StAnselm (talk) 01:55, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I made changes to the page re. Doug Wilson re. his recent involvement in two separate sexual abuse scandals in Moscow ID. I cited newspaper reports which cite court proceedings. I also reference his blog, a primary reference, and articles which contain his open letter to a correspondent at The American Conservative. I also cite the official announcement from the CREC, from their official webpage, which states that the leadership of Christ Church and their treatment of these sexual abuse cases are under inquiry.

I would like the changes reinstated since all the facts have been supported. I would appreciate your response.

Edit: I see that the objection to the changes was that all the sources were to blogs. I actually cited this: http://dnews.com/cps-opening-investigation-into-sitler-family/article_360e7bd2-571b-11e5-a676-e314137be5dd.html which is an article from the digital version of a newspaper reporting court proceedings, and also this: http://crechurches.org/documents/announcements/2015-CCMoscow-inquiry.php, which is an official announcement from the website of the CREC. The blogs cited either were primary references in which Doug Wilson refers to the events in question, or are from the opinions and reports from Rod Dreher and contain full quotations of primary references.

The following is from a blog, but contains court documents. These can be independently verified: http://sitler.moscowid.net/category/court-records/

Cheers.

Fact Check King (talk) 02:35, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

02:21, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Blogs are not allowed here on biographies of living people. The newspaper article doesn't mention Wilson at all. The CREC announcement only mentioned that Wilson is recusing himself. There simply isn't enough to go on. StAnselm (talk) 02:28, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Still getting the hang of this, please bear with my noobness. The only blog to which I referred was Doug Wilson's Blog. In 2015, that should be considered a primary source. Fact Check King (talk) 02:46, 10 October 2015 (UTC) 02:42, 10 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fact Check King (talk • contribs)

My bad on the nonsigning of the above. Fact Check King (talk) 02:46, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

As far as Wilson's blog goes, please read WP:BLPSELFPUB. It would fail #2 and #5 of those conditions. StAnselm (talk) 02:49, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Re criterion (2) The reference to the blog is not used to support any statement of facts in the edit, and is only used to support statements re. Wilson's opinions. May I ask in which way the use of the blog does pass criterion (5)? The facts of both cases can be verified independently, and I have cited reputable secondary sources for those. The blog was, as I said before, only used as a primary reference to Wilson's own opinions. Seems like there can be no more direct a source than that. Thanks for the education so far. I'm used to writing primarily in STEM fields, and this is another bag altogether. Fact Check King (talk) 03:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

The claim that someone is or isn't a sexual predator is precisely the thing that criterion 2 rules against. Criterion 5 fails because Wilson's blog was the only thing left standing after we knocked out Dreher and the newspaper reference. I'm sure we can find reliable sources about the two cases, but (a) I don't think we can find them for Wilson's involvement, and (b) they wouldn't be notable or significant enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. StAnselm (talk) 03:30, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand your opinion on (2). If I believe that so-and-so is a smurf, clearly that is my opinion. Whether or not that person is, in fact, a smurf can be verified independently of my opinion. Wilson's testimony is in court records, and his blog speaks to his currently held opinions. As for being notable or significant enough for inclusion in wikipedia, it's clear from the amount of coverage both in the press and in social media that this is a significant development in the life of Wilson and the history of Christ Church in Moscow ID. Otherwise, one could argue that the treatment of sexual abuse cases by clergy in the Boston area is not significant in the legacy of Bernard Law. Doug Wilson is obviously not as significant a public figure as Archbishop Law, but the fact that he has a wikipedia page should require that his "story" be told in full. I really appreciate your helping me to navigate wikipedia's edits. I own a company that is partnered with Wikia, Wikipedia's commercial offshoot, and our content guidelines are very different and much less strict that those of wikipedia, for obvious reasons. So just the opportunity to learn from someone who is obviously such a strong contributor/moderator is fascinating for me. Fact Check King (talk) 03:56, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, on wikipedia we don't go around hurling accusations of smurfhood. Anyway, I don't understand what you mean by "coverage in the press"? Is there anything about Wilson's involvement in either case? StAnselm (talk) 04:09, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Dreher reports on the scandal in his initial article, on Sept 29: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/scandal-in-moscow/. In this article, there are links to letters written by Wilson to the presideing judge asking for leniency for Steven Sitler. On September 5, Wilson posts on his blog referring specifically to the Sitler case and his opinion on is: http://dougwils.com/s7-engaging-the-culture/an-open-letter-from-christ-church-on-steven-sitler.html This certainly is primary evidence of his opinion on the case. and in subsequent blog post, speaks about the controversy, and how he views it: http://dougwils.com/s7-engaging-the-culture/the-high-mountain-air-of-public-calumny.html Re the earlier, Wight case, here is a link to a letter, written by Wilson, to the parents of the victim: https://homeschoolersanonymous.wordpress.com/2015/09/10/doug-wilsons-shaming-letter-to-the-father-of-an-abuse-survivor/ and the court proceedings also show that Wilson accompanies the defendant, Wight, and that neither paster at Christ Church accompanied the victim.

Dreher follows up his initial article in The American Conservative with a second article on October 1: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/doug-wilson-reluctant-response/ which contains a letter from Wilson to Dreher, and in which Wilson expresses his opinions of both cases.

Dreher follows up with a third article on October 3. Most of the reporting there is about the controversy that has been active on social media. In 2015, that a topic is widely discussed in social media is newsworthy, or for that matter, the goings on on any social platform- the temporarily shutting down of many important subreddits, for example, was reported widely in the tech press. Apart from reporting on the social media activity, Dreher also reports on Wilson's blog, in which Wilson defends his decision to marry Steven Sitler and Katie Travis, with reference to 1 Corinthians.

Three articles by Rod Dreher, I believe, must count towards "press" of Wilson's involvement in the controversy. As a public figure, popular pastor, and founder of a denomination, his writings on a subject that directly involves his congregation, and his treatment and opinion on sexual abuse cases within his congregation, are important parts of his wikipedia entry.

Perhaps a better way to record this on WIkipedia would be to be an edit on the Christ Church Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_Church_(Moscow,_Idaho) and a reference to Doug Wilson's involvement in the scandal referenced on his biographical page. Your advice would be appreciated.

Fact Check King (talk) 18:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you can call Dreher's blog "press". WP:BLPSPS says " Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." Even if we consider The American Conservative to be a "news organization", it doesn't appear that they exercise "full editorial control" over Dreher's blog. As far as the Christ Church page goes, we still have the same sourcing issues, and BLP policy applies on all articles, not just on articles about people. StAnselm (talk) 19:09, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I would disagree with your characterization of Dreher. He does "blog", but he is listed as a senior editor at The American Conservative masthead, so he would likely have more discretionary powers than less senior editors. Nonetheless, he conforms to standard journalistic practices, including adding "updates" and clarifications/redactions, instead of changing the original text. It is important to note that he is not an owner of the publication, but an employee. Therefore, one must conclude that he is in fact subject to the the editorial control of the publication

The American Conservative is both a print and online publication, and must be considered a regular publication.

Fact Check King (talk) 19:35, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I should also note for the record that I included a letter from Wilson to the presiding judget in the Sitler case. Certainly, this is a credible source. How about this. I will cite the Sitler case, and the Wight case, referring only to Drefer's original article, and court docouments. Wilson's blog will be only cited once to show that his support of Steven Sitler continues. The statement shall be a very neutral reference to Wilson's controversial views about 2 sexual abuse cases within his congregation: "Doug WIlson has recently become embroiled in an online controversy stemming from his written opinions on two sexual abuse cases involving minors, within his congregation."

Fact Check King (talk) 19:46, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

But without reliable news reports, we don't have any indication that there is a "controversy". That's why we cannot rely on court documents. (And by the way, we cannot have court documents sourced to blogs - they will need to come from official publications.) So it comes back to Dreher - perhaps you should ask at the Reliable sources noticeboard. But even if it is agreed that Dreher is allowed as a reliable source, we still have the issue of undue weight - is it significant enough in the context of Wilson's entire life and work for inclusion in the article? That is a discussion for the article talk page. So please do add this material again until you have gained consensus to do so. StAnselm (talk) 20:21, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, and again, appreciate the guidance. I will ask at the reliable sources noticeboard. Fact Check King (talk) 23:11, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi again. I've addressed the issue of the inclusion of the CREC inquiry in the Christ Church page. Since you seem to be the only editor who disagrees with the edit, I'd appreciate your input on the page so that we can come to a consensus. Thanks.

Fact Check King (talk) 02:14, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I'd appreciate your insight on my attempt to reach consensus on an talk page for the Douglas Wilson biography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fact Check King (talk • contribs) 21:20, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Warm weather...

If we get some warm weather, some more photos of smooth toadfish‎ would be great. I have a video of when I caught one in a bucket but my kids are shouting over the top of it.....Anyway, it is at FAC now so will be a nice mainpage one day....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Category:Order of the Netherlands Lion and subcategories relisted

Hello. You participated in either the CFD discussion to delete the above category and its subcategories or the DRV discussion regarding those categories (or both). The result of the DRV was to relist the categories for discussion. This is a notification that they have now been relisted for discussion here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:41, 14 October 2015 (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 Wikipedia: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 this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:33, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Propose Infobox academic

See proposal here Template_talk:Infobox_theologian#Propose Infobox academic :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:41, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Andrew Lincoln

I shall look forward to that article. Congrats on the PhD by the way - major achievement, and so many years. My daughter is currently just weeks off completing one - on entomology. No accounting for taste. PiCo (talk) 06:56, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Request help reading and writing: abortion article

Hi user:StAnselm, in light of recent US Constitutional / Supreme Court attention on the issue of hospital access for abortion clinics (especially in Texas), would you be able to include some words in the abortion article about the incidence of unintended live birth in abortion patients? I was able to find clinical guidelines in the Society for Family Planning journal Contraception on the subject of inducing fetal demise, which references a few reports saying that unintended live birth is not unheard-of, and a possibility during D&E as well as labor induction abortion procedures... http://www.societyfp.org/_documents/resources/InductionofFetalDemise.pdf I also made this request to one or two other editors this morning, none of whom has responded. Thanks! -SocraticOath (talk) 16:34, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I think I'll pass. Abortion articles can be a bit of a minefield here, and I'm quite busy IRL. StAnselm (talk) 19:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

just a note

you forgot to sign your message in the talk of Elimination of the penny. Cheers, Huritisho 19:44, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Clinton

What course of action do you recommend I/we take in regards to the situation on Public image of Bill Clinton? I have no intention to edit-war, but the user is highly persistent. Thanks, GAB^Hello! 21:49, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

You've been very patient and done a great job. If he adds anything back in again, report him at WP:EWN. StAnselm (talk) 21:59, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. GAB^Hello! 22:01, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

your DYK is cleared

Anselm - I read your note on Maile66's talk; just a courtesy heads-up, I've re-cleared your excellent article for the DYK queue in light of a unanimous administrator ruling that the original review was always acceptable. If you find this nom being held-up by a disruptive editor again, please let me know and I'll escalate the matter. LavaBaron (talk) 00:54, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

The contradiction was resolved

Did you read the diff?

Your complaint was that the first sentence of the lead said that Faith healing was described as "notably overt and ritualistic practices", while the last paragraph previously said "Faith healing can be classified as a belief".

You may have noticed my use of the past tense, e.g., was described and previously said, in describing those sentences. The lead no longer contains the self-contradiction that you complained about. That's why I said "Resolving contradiction discussed on talk page" in the edit summary. Given that I did resolve the apparent contradiction, it seemed quite reasonable for me to remove the now-outdated tag, and it would be even more reasonable for you to self-revert your re-addition of what is now an unjustified tag. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:17, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

No, the contradiction is still there: it (now) says it's "the ritualistic practice of prayer and gestures" and then it says it "can be classified as a spiritual, supernatural, or paranormal event". So - is faith healing the ritual of prayer (trying to heal), or is it the (supposed) event of healing? (Or to put it another way, does faith healing "exist"?) StAnselm (talk) 05:35, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's an "event", as in "thing that happened". Rituals, prayers, and gestures are all "events".

Notice that my focus is very narrow: These two sentences are no longer self-contradictory. Whether they provide sufficient specificity to satisfy you is irrelevant. There is no contradiction in them, and therefore there should no longer be a tag on the article that claims a contradiction. You are free to find a different tag, if you believe that a tag is necessary to register your dissatisfaction. It's possible that you will find relevant tags at Wikipedia:Please clarify. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:38, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

If you want to get that technical, the tag only says "appears to contradict..." It is certainly the most appropriate tag on the problem. StAnselm (talk) 06:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Where is the apparent contradiction, then? Let's try a different pair of sentences, so that the logic is clearer. Consider these two sentences: "Saying the rosary is a ritualistic practice. Saying the rosary can be classified as a spiritual event." Do you think there is a contradiction there? Is it possible for that practice to be both ritualistic and an event, i.e., an action that happens at a particular point in time? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:59, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Francis Doughty (clergyman)

A detailed review has been done. Thank you for asking, and sorry this was held up. — Maile (talk) 13:14, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! StAnselm (talk) 18:02, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Is there anything I can do to encourage you to use the Talk page when you revert my edits?

If you don't use the Talk page, it looks as though you have no confidence in your arguments and you want to keep a low profile. Reverting my work without discussing it isn't nice, and it's not the WP way. As a Christian, shouldn't you treat me the way you would want to be treated? Have I offended you in some way? Is that why you don't play fair with me? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 14:56, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

No need to get snide. I didn't see the talk page thread - you made no reference to it in your initial edit. The onus on you is to get consensus for your proposed edit. You could easily have dropped a friendly note here a week ago. StAnselm (talk) 18:37, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Beasley-Murray

Oops know I didn't - apologies  :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 09:12, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Francis Doughty (clergyman)

Thanks for helping to bring Halloween back to life Victuallers (talk) 00:01, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Merger

What do you think about merging John Calvin's view of Scripture into Theology of John Calvin? Editor2020, Talk 00:54, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary, and it would necessarily involve pruning some worthwhile material from the Scripture article. StAnselm (talk) 02:13, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for your opinion. Editor2020, Talk 03:21, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

new entry for Barry G. Webb bible commentator

not sure if the Guy you are interested in is the same as Barry G. Webb. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 16:35, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's the one. Thanks for your work. There's nothing that automatically suggests his notability, but his 1987 book on Judges has more than 100 citations on Google Scholar. StAnselm (talk) 19:34, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Oral Gospel traditions

Hello, StAnselm -- I was just reading Oral Gospel traditions, and I made a few minor copy-edits. I saw you were recently editing this article, so I thought I'd ask you what you thought about the text formatting for "Oral Tradition", "Oral Gospel Tradition", "Jesus-Tradition", and "Inspired Opinion" in the section Oral Gospel traditions#Critical methods: source and form criticism. I don't see why these phrases are italicized. They're not foreign words. They're not book titles. I think it does make senses to italicize "Oral Gospel Tradition" in the lead, but after that, I don't think they need to be italicized. In fact, I don't think "tradition" needs to be capitalized anywhere. Perhaps "Jesus-Tradition" and "Inspired Opinion" could be put into quotation marks to set them off. What do you think? Corinne (talk) 03:12, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, I think I have only made a few minor changes - I have generally avoided that article and specific topic. But you're certainly right - they should not be italicised. Go ahead and make the changes as you see fit. StAnselm (talk) 03:28, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Waldensians

Hello, StAnselm -- I was reading the article on the Waldensians, and I came across a word that looked odd, in the first sentence of the last paragraph in the section Waldensians#Origins:

• Unfortunately, "our current knowledge of the history of the Waldensians in the Middle Ages is almost exclusively tributatry of the sources coming from the official Roman Church", the body that was condemning them as heretics.

I tried to look in the source, but I don't see how to access it. Do you think "tributatry" really should be "tributary"? I hadn't heard "tributary" used that way, but I guess it means "flowing from". Shall I change it? Corinne (talk) 23:26, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I can't access it either, not even with JSTOR. But it's surely a typo, and "tributary" is plausible. I can change it. StAnselm (talk) 04:46, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:CIRC

I'm sure you were surprised to read that WP policy says not to use WP pages as sources. Given that clear message from WP policy, it would probably go smoother all around if you were to acknowledge that using WP pages as sources, as you suggested, would not be a good idea after all. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

No, that refers to content rather style/layout/structure/approach. StAnselm (talk) 17:47, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I was worried that you might stick to your guns. In that case, please share your evidence for that interpretation on the talk page. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 23:54, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Albert Switzer

In the article about Albert Switzer it says he was born in Ksyersberg"Alsace Loraine". There is no such place as "Alsace Loraine". Ksyersberg is in Alsace. Saying Alsace Loraine would be like saying Atlanta is in Alabama Georgia. Both are unique and separate regions. They are just lumped together out of ignorance because both were disputed by Germany and France. Alsace is actually somewhat German-like, but Loraine is the birthplace of Joan of Arc! Alsace was many years part of France -two centuries. It was German for only the period in the late 1800's until WWI peace restored France. Alsatians go not consider their language to be a dialect of German! David Dye — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.212.185.84 (talk) 03:38, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Assume this editor means Albert Schweitzer :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 17:00, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Harold Pinker

Did you mean Harold Pinker that's already written (as a redirect) as a P. G. Wodehouse character? :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 15:25, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. StAnselm (talk) 23:50, 30 November 2015 (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 Wikipedia: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 this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!
This dispute case can be found at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Jesus. This notice has been sent to you by Drcrazy102 (talk) 05:11, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Doug Wilson Plagiarism

Plagiarism in a book Wilson co-authored is significant to him, because generally co-authors who don't distinguish their content are held responsible for the whole book. Wilson knows this as he has written elsewhere if his name is on it, he is responsible for it.666stan666 (talk) 20:28, 11 December 2015 (UTC)666stan666 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 666stan666 (talk • contribs) 20:26, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

That may be, but we can only assess significance from reliable secondary sources. The Canon Press statement is not enough, and everything else is blog material. StAnselm (talk) 20:38, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Alexamenos graffito

I see you started editing that page after I did. I hope you're not following me around Wikipedia. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:12, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

In fact, the article came up on this list, which I look at from time to time. StAnselm (talk) 20:49, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks for clarifying. I've been wikistalked before. I guess I'm once burned, twice shy. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 04:22, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

attacking editors

I promise to stop attacking editors. I would love for us all to focus on evidence. Can you show me the edit where I attacked an editor? Thank you. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 04:21, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

It's these words: "You oppose the mainstream view". This is (a) groundless, and (b) irrelevant to the discussion. StAnselm (talk) 14:12, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Knee-jerk reaction

How about discussing the article with me first before trying to make your pedantic WP:POINT? See article the talk page. Jack | ^{talk page} 21:06, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

What are you talking about? What's with creating the article again in defiance of the AfD consensus? This is a classic CSD G4 - you have not added any new references. StAnselm (talk) 21:08, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Stop telling lies and deal with this as a new article. You know perfectly well the old one had no references. Ask yourself what YOU are talking about. As for consensus, the DRV had no consensus. Jack | ^{talk page} 21:19, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Asian Month Barnstar
	Thanks for your great contribution in Wikipedia Asian Month 2015! --AddisWang (talk) 19:50, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Perera

I have restored the word "former" to this article and would suggest that you study sources diligently before jumping to conclusions and getting things hopelessly wrong. If you look at the man's ESPNcricinfo (CI) record you will see that it states his first-class career SPAN. CI does this for every player whose career has ended; for current players they confirm the debut. Does the word "span" register with you? The site confirms that Perera's career span was one season only: i.e., from 1991–92 to 1991–92. This means his first-class career ended 24 years ago and so he is a former first-class cricketer.

How DARE you place a warning symbol on my talk page and accuse me of breaching BLP? You cannot get your facts right and you try to twist things to mislead others into taking your WP:POINT. You are bang out of order. Jack | ^{talk page} 21:11, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

What exactly is your problem? READ the ESPNcricinfo source. He finished playing in 1991. It says so there. What does "span" mean? Jack | ^{talk page} 22:31, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

It says "First-class span", which means exactly what it says. We have no way of knowing what other levels he played at, for how long, and whether he is still playing. StAnselm (talk) 22:35, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay, since you are so pedantic, I will say that he is a former first-class cricketer. So you do recognise the reliability of the source, then, if it means exactly what it says? Jack | ^{talk page} 22:40, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Jack | ^{talk page} 21:39, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Caution

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to S. Perera (Old Cambrians cricketer). Re your 20:14, 17 December 2015 edit, there is nothing in the source that indicates he is a current cricketer. Jack | ^{talk page} 08:20, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, there is not. StAnselm (talk) 13:41, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Final warning

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at S. Perera (Old Cambrians cricketer). Re your 22:19, 18 December 2015 edit, we currently have no way of knowing if he continued to play at any level after 1991 so your insistence that he is a current player breaches BLP. Jack | ^{talk page} 08:20, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Questions

Hi there. I'm sorry we have come to such an impasse over this issue and would first ask you if you would forgive me for some of the things I have said, which are, I promise, very out of character for me.

Just in case you don't check the link, I have asked a couple of questions towards the bottom of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S. Perera (Old Cambrians cricketer) (2nd nomination) which I hope you wouldn't mind giving a few moments of your time. Bobo. 18:10, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the apology. I have certainly found the vitriol directed at "keep" !voters distressing, but yes - I forgive you. StAnselm (talk) 20:09, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

At the risk of begging, I hope that doesn't include my comments, I am trying to see the discussion from both sides even though I do fall squarely on one side of the argument. Bobo. 20:24, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

No, it doesn't include you, and I wasn't sure why you were asking for forgiveness. The only thing you said which might be objectionable was a vague reference to those who were "attempting to destroy" work. (And the reference to "cowering for forgiveness", though that wasn't directed at me.) StAnselm (talk) 20:31, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

For the record, I too would like to dissociate myself from the invective you have been receiving. I don't agree with some of your views and actions, but I can see that you are acting consistently in good faith and with commendable courtesy under some provocation. Here's a small seasonal gesture of goodwill. Johnlp (talk) 10:29, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Johnlp has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Thanks so much. There seems to be a level of invective and hysteria that I have rarely encountered in Wikipedia, even in editing religion-related articles. StAnselm (talk) 12:09, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh, but cricket is so much more than just a religion. ;) Johnlp (talk) 12:26, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Apology demanded

"Now, the fact that you now refer to a guide issued "about 2005" suggests that "Sri Lankan cricketers, 2015" is simply a made-up reference that you added to the article. Don't do that, please".

Who the hell do you think you are? I suggest you read WP:AGF and you also READ CAREFULLY what has been written in that AfD about the ACS guide. I was told by my ACS contact that the information came from a new guide which I assumed had been published. When Harrias queried that, quite rightly, I checked and was told that, no, this one is a draft but there was an earlier one. Are you trying to claim that I have invented something and that neither of these works exist?

You are a condescending individual whose motives are highly questionable. You scream about BLP and then blatantly breach it yourself. You do not assume good faith. You are so determined to have this article breached, because you and you so-convenient sidekick do not like it, that you will go to almost any lengths to try and discredit and the genuine efforts of experienced cricket editors to justify it and develop our project.

How dare you accuse me of inventing something? I have followed up on a discussion at WT:CRIC which suggested we should seek information from Sri Lanka and I can only repeat what I am told in good faith by a reliable contact in a reputable organisation, the ACS.

Quite frankly, you should resign from WP. You are unfit to be an editor here. Jack | ^{talk page} 12:13, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Whatever. But the fact that there was miscommunication between you and your friend is exactly the reason why Wikipedia relies exclusively on verifiable, published sources. StAnselm (talk) 12:17, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

You still assume good faith especially when you can see that an experienced editor, co-operating with his project, is trying to establish distant sources. I accepted Harrias' question, which is fair enough, and decided I ought to verify the ACS publication. You, hoever, behave like one of these Old Testament myths you obviously believe in and decide that you are right and everyone who has a different point of view is breaching BLP and up to no good. You are a disgrace. Resign. Jack | ^{talk page} 12:37, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Any possible reason I had to assume good faith on your behalf has just gone out the window. StAnselm (talk) 12:43, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Likewise. Right, now that I have had some time, I see that it is quite easy to cite a newspaper so I've done it. Read the article again and then go back to the AfD. I am taking no further part in it. People like you and your infantile sidekick disgust me. Jack | ^{talk page} 12:48, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

births category

You need to add the date of birth missing category. Jack | ^{talk page} 13:30, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Verification needed

What verification? You have a citation, so what else? Do please enlighten me. Jack | ^{talk page}

Pinged

Just in case you don't see it, I've pinged you on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S. Perera (Old Cambrians cricketer) (2nd nomination). Would be interested to know what you think. Bobo. 14:27, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Another ping

[2] - I've added my tuppence-worth and I hope it makes logical sense. Bobo. 14:44, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

The old debate again

Tgeorgescu and PiCo have started up a variation of the argument some time ago over Nativity of Jesus, except now it's going on in both that article and Census of Quirnius. I'm trying to consolidate the issue in just one article, and then link to that article from other articles mentioning the same thing. Doug Weller also supports that, and PiCo had done that also in at least one other article. GBRV (talk) 01:24, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

I know we have different ideas of who Jesus was, but I hope you had a merry Christmas. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 00:49, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! StAnselm (talk) 02:04, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

	Happy New Year!
	Best wishes for a wonderful 2016!---- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:18, 31 December 2015 (UTC)