BrianBeahr socks
Commiserations on the grand final loss mate. It seems to have made poor Brian go on an edit frenzy so I've finally made the effort to create a sockpuppet investigation for Brian. I've listed three socks that I know of but if you know of more that you want to add, or just want to comment, please do. Cheers. Jevansen (talk) 08:57, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- On second thought don't bother. The investigation is already in the latter stages with at least six of his socks banned. I thought this would be a longer process but it only took ten minutes! Jevansen (talk) 09:10, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
-
- Thanks. I have been hoping that Brian would learn to edit colloboratively - and also cease creating multiple sockpuppets. He has made some useful contributions to St Kilda articles but then ruins things by his obsession for unimportant details and ignoring the established style principles. I doubt that he is going to change but I hope that he is still capable of this and will seek to get himself unblocked in the established manner. And thanks for your "commiserations" about the grand final. I was at the game with a friend but we left early in the final quarter as we weren't in the mood to deal with rampaging feral Collingwood supporters - some of whom were already taunting Saints' supporters at that stage. Afterwriting (talk) 11:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Suggested changes at MOTD
Hello fellow motto contributor. Discussions arer still open on Wikipedia talk:Motto of the day/Nominations#Suggested changes and still require further input especially on ideas 10-17. Please could you voice your opinion as this is going to be closed in early November. Please help out or even make any new idea suggestions. Simply south (talk) 15:15, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- This is a last call. Any opinions should be suggested by and including November 5th. See Wikipedia talk:Motto of the day/Nominations/Archive 2#Suggested Changes Simply south (talk) 21:21, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Invitation
Hello User:Afterwriting,
You and a number of others, are invited by User:Sp33dyphil to help him cleanup and significantly improve the articles that he’d edited and will edit. The articles involved are airline alliances, such as SkyTeam, Oneworld and Star Alliance. He will be improving and expanding shoe and clothes manufacturing companies, namely Puma AG, Addidas and Nike, Inc.. Airline articles will also be edited, along with Australian rules football and related clubs. You do not need to know these subjects; but you could help
-
- copyedit the articles, as well as improving the English in the involved further.
- format the references by inserting citation templates. Please go to WP:CITET, or go to his contributions page to see how he has been carrying out this job.
- add appropriate and relevant pictures and media deemed necessary.
- merge and tighten paragraphs. Since there are numerous one- and two-sentence paragraphs, merging these together helps editors afterwards add information.
- wikification.
*****Please disregard the following section if you are busy. Only concentrate on the jobs above.*****
If you have time, you could further help by:
-
- adding pictures/media of the involved subjects to Wiki Commons.
- bringing together quotes regarding those who direct or hold significant relationships with organisations such as Greenpeace, SkyTeam, Oneworld, Star Alliance, Puma AG, Adidas, Nike, Inc. and Australian rules football/soccer clubs.
- finding press releases, news articles, etc. for Star Alliance and Vietnam Airlines, which don’t have a lot of information during their early days.
Once you have embarked on the activities above, please drop User:Sp33dyphil a message at his user page.
And of course, if you have any jobs for Sp33dyphil, just drop him a message.
Please distribute this message among other Wikipedians
Sp33dyphil (Talk) (Contributions)(Feed back needed @ Talk page) 12:32, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
NLP
Lede summarises the article, there is more than enough material there to establish that it is controversial It is not normal to provide references in the ledes of articles --Snowded TALK 10:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- Then you should leave out contentious POV statements as being factual and discuss them elsewhere. Afterwriting (talk) 12:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- The material in the main body of the article makes it very clear that NLP is controversial. That material is referenced. You should maybe address facts. --Snowded TALK 13:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- There is no need to mention "controversial" in the introduction. All sorts of things are "controversial" - or have controversies associated with them - but this doesn't usually require a comment in the very first sentence of an article. This has nothing to do with "facts" - it is to do with appropriate encyclopedia style. Afterwriting (talk) 13:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- The material in the main body of the article makes it very clear that NLP is controversial. That material is referenced. You should maybe address facts. --Snowded TALK 13:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Merry Christmas!
"US" vs. "United States"
I've seen that on at least a couple pages you've changed "US" to "United States". You should probably take a look at WP:ABBR, specifically the section "Initialisms that can be used without spelling out in full first, which includes "US". DKqwerty (talk) 15:07, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- Okay. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Maybe the policy has changed or I didn't fully understand it. Afterwriting (talk) 12:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Your help is needed!
You've got a message at this link. Please seriously consider the message because help is really needed; your experience as a copyeditor will be valuable to this collaboration. Whatever your decision is, please drop me a message. Sp33dyphil (Talk) (Contributions)(Feed back needed @ Talk page) 08:35, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
/* Christmas mottos and a note to self to spell determined correctly next time when acting like a bot */
The motto idea for those between 25th December and mid January needs consensus dtermined badly on which version should be used for which day or even whether the whole idea should be scrapped or postponed. Please help by discussion and determining consensus at WT:Motto of the day/Nominations#Christmas series and Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Nominations/Specials. The deadline is Friday at 9pm UTC. Simply south (talk) and their tree 23:45, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
January 2011
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. jps (talk) 17:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- How sad - but thanks for for the laugh! Obviously you don't own a mirror. Afterwriting (talk) 10:08, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Notice
The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose, at their own discretion, sanctions on any editor working on pages broadly related to pseudoscience if the editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. The committee's full decision can be read at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Final decision. T. Canens (talk) 03:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps in future you might take the time to actually examine people's edits before adding unjustified notices such as this. This kind of behaviour by administrators only undermines their credibility. Afterwriting (talk) 11:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Cautious warning
Thanks for your concern about the Enneagram article. I must be associated with the highly skeptical pack of editors that recently arrived. This group appears to have some interest in wp:hounding my contributions. Please by cautious, I have seen many editors harmed. Best wishes. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 15:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello from MOTD
Hello. We could do with your assistance for suggestions of mottos and any decisions on current ones. Please see Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Nominations. In case this situation occurs again, we would like a discussion on emergency mottos. Please see WT:MOTD/N#Emergency mottos. Simply south...... 14:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
The the
You really should read this, [1]. It's my attempt to stop the war that has been going on for years. As the article is already called The Beatles, there is no need to keep repeating it in the article.--andreasegde (talk) 12:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- This is irrelevant and you have completely missed the point. It is simply grammatically correct that in sentences a plural word such as "Beatles" should normally be preceded by "The" or "the". So it needs to be "repeated" when it is grammatically required. Afterwriting (talk) 14:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
-
- Just to clarify: My comments above are about the fact that "The" or "the" is usually required before "Beatles" - *not* about constantly using "The Beatles" when "they" or "the band" etc would be sufficient. For my approach to this please see my comments on the article's discussion page. On this matter my approach essentially agrees with your own. Afterwriting (talk) 15:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
-
-
- After reading this: "and then to usually only use "he", "she", "it", "they" (etc) in subsequent references", is very correct, IMHO. Please vote Support or Oppose in this [2] debate.--andreasegde (talk) 23:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
-
"The Beatles" versus "the Beatles"
There is currently a vote taking place and your input would be appreciated. — GabeMc (talk) 01:16, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Lionel Rose terminology
thanks for your message. I read the linked article. I asked some friends who are Indigenous Australians and they told me it's a really complex issue, and everyone has their own preference for the term. and one said that if someone had written an article about them (my friend), they'd like the terms that they preferred themselves to be used. (ie not terms that others applied to them - which is one of the whole issues - paternalism etc where others assume/apply terms/conditions on them) which sounds fair enough to me. & is why I reverted my changes as I wasn't really sure what Lionel's preferred term was (& since this was an article about a person, and especially since he's recently passed away and many people are talking about his great work in Australia). I think though, that if 'Indigenous Australian' is used, it should be a capital I & A rather than lower case i, as this is generally used in Australia as a mark of respect (and it's mentioned in the university teaching guides). so I thought I'd try research some other articles where perhaps Lionel had made a comment as to his preferred term. perhaps he preferred the term Australian? I'm not sure yet. Kathodonnell (talk) 16:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
FUI
This is just a reminder. If a motto has been used multiple times it should be under or added to Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Nominations/Frequently used ideas. Simply south...... improving for 5 years So much for ER 08:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Grace Gawler
Aftertalk I appreciate your efforst to help me create a 'neutral' article. I'm keen to discuss Grace Gawler, Ian Gawler and Ainslie Meares - all of whom I've edited because the three are connected and known to each other through efforts to help Ian Gawler recover from cancer. Due to attaining a very high media profile, Ian Gawler's cancer remission story has been an influence on thousands of cancer patients in Autralia and overseas. His main book sold over 250,000 copies and many of the 115,000 new cancer patients in AU each year will try to follow his story believing it to be accurately portrayed. It is imperative his story is told accurately so patients can make informed and rational treatment decisions.
One of my concerns is your repeated insertion of the word 'alleged' when the aspect is proven with evidence or admitted. EG Ian Gawler has admitted publicly admitted knowing of errors in both MJA article about his case - Meares's article in 1978 and the one in 2008 written by current wife Ruth Gawler and colleague Prof G Jelinek . Neither Ruth Gawler or Prof Jelinek were present during Ian Gawler's cancer recovery years. In other words they did not know details of the remission first hand. To write their 2008 MJA article about Ian Gawler they either relied on Ian Gawler's memory or used information recorded in his books. However there are inconsistencies between what is recorded in Ian Gawler's biography and what Ruth Gawler and Jelinek wrote in the 'peer reviewed' 2008 MJA article. Ian's first wife Grace Gawler was privvy to it all, involved as she was 24/7 in his care over a period of many years. Concerned for the impact on cancer patients she supplied photographic evidence to the MJA and the public record.
That Ian Gawler knew two prestigious MJA article about his healing story over a 30 year period were not accurate, and, given the person has made his living from his story in the cancer industry; this seems a very serious matter.
I request that Wiki allow, at the least, a controversial section in Ian Gawler and Meares (deceased) pages. I am prepared to work with you to write them in encylopedic style. I contend that the high profile of both people, Ian Gawler and Meares and the rise in deaths from alternative cancer medicine necessitates the controversy around this part of their life story be told. I'd like some discusion on this please.Pipcornall (talk) 23:17, 7 September 2011 (UTC) Pipcornall (talk) 21:37, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Motto of the Day Motto Shop
Hello! My name is Belugaboy, and by now, you and I both have heard of the Motto Shop, and if not, there's a Motto Shop! It's an exclusive place where users can get their own motto to live by on the wiki. It's great, but we're really running slow, in fact, we haven't seen a customer in months. So we thought YOU, the contributors to Motto of the Day, could spread the word to your WikiFriends, heck, order yourself one, whether you have or haven't before. Thank you and warm regards to all of you!
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Belugaboy (talk) at 15:35, 3 October 2011 (UTC).
Snowded and Lam Kin Keung / HeadleyDown Meat/Sockpuppetting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/HeadleyDown
http://sites.google.com/site/sockmasterouting/ [[3]]
A detailed run-down of HeadleyDown and his meat/sockpuppets is here: https://sites.google.com/site/exposingsocks/ [[4]]
http://www.nlpconnections.com/forum/15975-master-sock-puppeteer-outed.html [[5]]
http://www.nlpconnections.com/forum/15975-master-sock-puppeteer-outed-2.html [[6]]
Note the comment: by James Donnelly
-
- I am a skeptic myself like some other NLPers. However, the NLP article is far from balanced. It looks like a blatant attack on NLP. The website you linked is quite clear on one thing: Pro NLPers have never been banned. That should tell you something: Wikipedians other than youself realize your editing is highly biased. Of course they allow others in to balance the picture.Good luck with promoting your side and routing your foes. I think it will backfire badly though. You and your pseudoskeptic friends will just end up getting banned again. CheersJamesD
Here's what happened the last time: [[7]]
And last but not least, the Wikipedia ban on HeadleyDown+sock/meatpuppets and any reincarnation of him, based upon BEHAVIOR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.243.106.37 (talk) 16:44, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks
The Working Man's Barnstar | |
message GenericBob (talk) 12:22, 9 November 2011 (UTC) |
Just wanted to say thanks for your work on Ronald Ryan. It's been in desperate need of a revamp for a long time, but just fending off EE feels like a full-time job sometimes and I haven't been able to muster the enthusiasm to do the necessary editing myself. --GenericBob (talk) 12:22, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Crystal Cathedral
Hi, I noticed you are an established editor who has recently been involved with editing Crystal Cathedral. There is currently a discussion going on on Talk:Crystal Cathedral regarding the wording on the article and would like another opinion on the matter, if you can. Thanks! —KuyaBriBriTalk 15:04, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
CW&C The Bob Dylan Paper site: a question to you
Could you please explain us WHY I cannot put a link to a Dylan reference site? CW&C is NOT a commercial site: it does not sell anything, that's just a list of documents with scans, and hours of work since 1996. (This is not a silly comment, just a question.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michpom (talk • contribs) 09:58, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Milligan's KBE
Where in that article does it say that Irish citizens are allowed to use Imperial postnominals? This is a question of Irish law, not of British custom. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 12:27, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- Then provide some evidence to support this claim - until then this is only opinion. Afterwriting (talk) 12:32, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
In Re: Your edit comments on Bob Geldof
Whoa, it must be very early in the morning for me to make a mistake like that. Thanks for catching it, but I assure you I had no intentions of sneaking that in there under a confusing edit summary. Achowat (talk) 13:12, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- I later thought that you may have inadvertently reverted the wrong edit. Cheers, Afterwriting (talk) 13:14, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Adrian Edmondson
You have made a recent edit to a page about me. I have tried a number of channels to try and remove factual inaccuracies about me on this page, all to no avail. How do I do it? Do you know? Can you help? Where can I be verified as myself??? They're not huge lies, it's just the boring kind of stuff I'm bored of answering whenever I'm interviewed... Cheers, Adrian Edmondson — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrianedmondson (talk • contribs) 00:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- Hello Adrian, Thanks for your message and apologies for the delay replying. I will try and assist you with the issues you are concerned about. Can't do this right at the moment but will asap. Cheers, Afterwriting (talk) 14:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Rochester Cathedral
FYI Phil Hesketh holds a PhD, and styles himself Rev Dr, is there a reason you have removed his and Edwina's doctorates? Likewise why have you removed Ashfield's doctorate?
Sayer is still cathedral organist. The two positions of DOM and organist have historically been the same, but in 2008 Sayer gave up the choirmaster side to concentrate of the organ. Farrell was appointed DOM but not organist (though of course he plays, and plays very well I might add). Martin of Sheffield (talk) 14:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- Academic titles such as "Dr" and "Professor" are not meant to be included with people's names in WP article's as a matter of policy. Therefore I removed them from the article as I do any time I find them. As for the second matter, the information was confusing to me as to who is currently the organist. I tried to clarify this but obviously failed. Please try to make this information clearer. Afterwriting (talk) 15:03, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
-
- OK, any chance of a pointer as to which policy? I'll have a look at the organist section later, it was part of the old page I "inherited" from an earlier editor. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 16:02, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
-
-
- I note that you are consistently altering formal titles to lower case. WP:JOBTITLES section 6 bullet point 3 would appear to apply here. Farrell's formal job title at Rochester is Director of Music. Section 13 applies to "institutions" and I would suggest to you that whilst lay clerks collectively might be a description, the Lay Clerks are an identifiable group with a provenence of around 500 years - which makes them some sort of institution! For that matter, is there a reason you change "whilst" to "while"? The OED 2nd Ed seems quite happy with the usage, it sounds natural: "don't use a mobile whilst driving" for example.Martin of Sheffield (talk) 17:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Please do not keep changing The Foundation to the foundation. The Foundation refers to the statutes and personel established by those statues, not the base layer of masonry. All guide books from Palmer (1897) onwards refer to the chapter room doorway as "magnificent", "a feature" or "the beautiful doorway" - his last from p17 of Palmer. Harrison & Evemy refer to it as "The elaborate" ... "one of the finest examples of English Decorated architecture in existence". Do you have a problem with this? FYI, 19th September is BrE, 19 September is AmE. Perhaps you might care to describe the difference in architecture between the Lady chapel and the nave? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 13:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Yes I do have a problem with the use of language in the article which has numerous style policy problems. The article has become very twee and is being written in the style of a gushy tourist brochure instead of an encyclopaedia article. Editors should refrain from using adjectives such as "magnificent" etc. And phrases such as "one of the finest examples of English Decorated architecture in existence" should only be used in connection with, for example, "according to Harrison & Evemy the cathedral is ..." And there are only two acceptable date styles in Wikipedia articles ~ either, for example, 19 September 2011 (which is the usual style in articles on British and Commonwealth topics) or September 19, 2011 (which is the usual style in America-related articles). The use of "19th" is proscribed. It would greatly help matters if you could brush up on the style policies as it is becoming tiresome correcting your numerous style problems. I also suspect that you are paraphrasing or just plagiarising already published sources which is also explicitly disallowed. I don't believe any contemporary person would write in such an antiquated manner. As for "foundation", it should only be capitalised if it is part of a proper noun / name and is being used with the full name in the same way as "Rochester Cathedral" but "the cathedral" (not "the Cathedral"). Again this is a matter of WP's style policy which trumps personal preferences or inhouse style policies. Afterwriting (talk) 11:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- OK, I'm not going to enter a dispute, please complete the article yourself. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 13:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- Yes I do have a problem with the use of language in the article which has numerous style policy problems. The article has become very twee and is being written in the style of a gushy tourist brochure instead of an encyclopaedia article. Editors should refrain from using adjectives such as "magnificent" etc. And phrases such as "one of the finest examples of English Decorated architecture in existence" should only be used in connection with, for example, "according to Harrison & Evemy the cathedral is ..." And there are only two acceptable date styles in Wikipedia articles ~ either, for example, 19 September 2011 (which is the usual style in articles on British and Commonwealth topics) or September 19, 2011 (which is the usual style in America-related articles). The use of "19th" is proscribed. It would greatly help matters if you could brush up on the style policies as it is becoming tiresome correcting your numerous style problems. I also suspect that you are paraphrasing or just plagiarising already published sources which is also explicitly disallowed. I don't believe any contemporary person would write in such an antiquated manner. As for "foundation", it should only be capitalised if it is part of a proper noun / name and is being used with the full name in the same way as "Rochester Cathedral" but "the cathedral" (not "the Cathedral"). Again this is a matter of WP's style policy which trumps personal preferences or inhouse style policies. Afterwriting (talk) 11:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
-
-
-
Euclid University
Hi. Thanks for your input in stopping that anonymous person coming into that article and vandalizing it. But when you rv'd an edit, you also deleted the bit I placed in about it's university charter being mentioned in the OIC Journal.
EUCLID, also called Pôle Universitaire Euclide or Euclid University, is an intergovernmental organization with a University Charter.[1][2]
I am seriously beginning to think that this vandalism and bias is connected with Islamaphobia. For instance, how can anyone remove a reference to the University charter of Euclid, just because the reference is the official journal of the OIC? Organisation of Islamic Cooperation. The OIC is the 2nd largest IGO after the UN by the way. So I am asking you for your help over on that article if possible.Satinmaster (talk) 14:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
You have done it again. Removed a UN and OIC reference??? Please discuss changes on the talk page before removing my changes. Thank youSatinmaster (talk) 15:20, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
You also said (No references to EUCLID in this document.) and took it out. The reference mentions EUCLID about 7 times. ??? Satinmaster (talk) 15:24, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks about agreeing on the OIC thing. I think you are right, that should not be mentioned until we can get at least another notable source that confirms it.
The recent edits to the page though by that ip address guy ("Euclid University is not included in the International Handbook of Universities 2012 or in the "World Higher Education Database" ) have been added with the express desire to cast doubt upon the institution. Unless that is standard practice with every university on wikipedia not listed in those ywo places, I think it should not even be there.Satinmaster (talk) 17:30, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Original Barnstar | |
For your diligence in maintaining the integrity of the Catholic Church article! Cjmclark (Contact) 08:11, 2 February 2012 (UTC) |
Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Sunrise (TV program), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Simon Reeve (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:35, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Future of MOTD
I've decided to start a project discussion on this. Please see WT:MOTD. Simply south...... having large explosions for 5 years 17:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited C. W. Stoneking, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 3CR (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:16, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Ichthus: January 2012
ICHTHUS |
January 2012 |
In this issue...
For submissions and subscriptions contact the Newsroom
MOTDs (This space for rent)
You may have noticed over the past few days that the MOTD that you link to on your user page has simply displayed a red link. This is due to the fact that not enough people are reviewing pending MOTDs here. Please help us keep the MOTD template alive and simply go and review a few of the MOTDs in the list. That way we can have a real MOTD in the future rather than re-using (This space for rent). Any help would be appreciated! –pjoef (talk • contribs) 16:00, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yumi_Stynes
Can you explain how my edits were a BLP violation? Was anything untrue? Was anything hurtful or insulting? Can you suggest a better way of putting the facts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.216.75 (talk) 13:14, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- Try this for a start at WP:BLPSTYLE:
- "BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subject, and in some circumstances what the subject has published about himself." Afterwriting (talk) 13:27, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
April Fool Motto
April Fools Day is just around the corner. As such please could you nominate a new motto or comment on existing suggestions at Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Nominations/Specials? Simply south...... facing oncoming traffic for over 5 years 16:31, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Double last names!
I would like an explanation, who is "Costa"? Whenever you edit the page of Carlos Duarte Costa, you mention a "Costa"! The complete last name of Carlos Duarte Costa, is Duarte Costa, and not just Costa. Carlos Costa, would be a total different person. Besides that I would suggest you also brush up on what is theological information, and what is opinion. When someone writes, what their church is all about, then it is theolgical information and not oppinion. I have trying very hard to fight vandalism, when it comes to the wikipedia pages of my church. I don't think it is fair, that I also have to fight editors, who by their own admitance, have a problem with religion, and therefore cannot be objectiv when it comes to religion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bellisapuffda (talk • contribs) 11:19, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- I have already corrected myself on this matter and changed instances of "Costa" to "Duarte Costa" after reading the explanation on his name so I don't understand why you are mentioning this. I am always pleased to have any mistakes brought to my attention. I always try to edit articles according to the style and other policies. This includes removing personal commentary regardless of what the subject matter is. Under your various editor names you are editing articles in a number of ways which are contrary to the style policies. Any edits you make which are contrary to policies will either be reverted or, if possible, corrected to conform with the style policies. All editors are subject to having their edits reverted or corrected if they are not written according to the style policies. And, for your information, I am theologically educated and teach courses on religious subjects. So I am not against religion - only against fanatical religious people who edit articles to promote their particular religious views. Afterwriting (talk) 12:34, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
-
- It's a pity that you didn't bother to check my previous edits on the Duarte Costa article. Had you done so you would have noticed that I had corrected all instances of "Costa" to "Duarte Costa". By reverting my edits you restored instances of just "Corta" that you complained about above. Afterwriting (talk) 13:18, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Don Richard Riso
Hello Afterwriting! Thanks for helping me with this article. Do you know, where Riso stated not to be a priest? Unfortunately, I did not found many sources regarding his biography, so I would be interested in where you have found that! Greetings, --Mousemilker (talk) 12:56, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- Hi! I'm very interested about an answer. Is anything unclear? Greetings, --Mousemilker (talk) 13:24, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
I know that some published sources have incorrectly referred to Riso as having been a Jesuit priest (just as some published sources incorrectly refer to Oscar Ichazo as having being a psychiatrist). I cannot point you to any published sources at present which say so, but Riso has said (including to myself personally in the 1980s when I first knew him) that he left the order not too long before he was due to be ordained. You will not find any statement by Riso himself that he was ever a priest - only that he was once a member of the Jesuit order. Some people have erroneously assumed that his having been a Jesuit meant that he was therefore a Jesuit priest. If he had been a priest I would expect him to have said so somewhere - but he hasn't because he wasn't. Ultimately, of course, I can only ask you to believe my personal knowledge of the facts on this. Cheers, Afterwriting (talk) 13:50, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you very much! ;-} --Mousemilker (talk) 16:57, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Catholic Church
Hi, I do indeed appreciate your care for clarity of that article. Your insisting on writing about the understanding of the teaching "that it is the one true Church founded by Jesus Christ" somewhere in the article is perfect. As I am extremely busy, I just want to fix now quickly what seems to me an integrist POV message of the lead, by including at least the reference to the Dominus Iesus, which I already put there about a month ago. It later disappeared, though it spoke directly about the discussed issue.--Quodvultdeus (talk) 11:49, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Dbrodbeck didn't revert your edit...
...he reverted back to your edit. --Six words (talk) 13:08, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- Oops!!! Thanks for letting me know. I thought the edit comment was a bit strong in reponse to my original edit. Afterwriting (talk) 13:23, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, I was reverting to your edit, not your edit. I apologize if this was not clear. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:04, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks, but it was my fault for not reading your edit description properly. Afterwriting (talk) 16:21, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, I was reverting to your edit, not your edit. I apologize if this was not clear. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:04, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the laugh
I found your recent edit on the R* talk page absolutely hilarious. I appreciate the laugh.Zugman (talk) 20:25, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Duarte Costa was not excommunicated
It seems that someone is adament on stating that Duarte Costa was excommunicated.
The Holy See at the time would have issued by Special Decree the Excommunication. This would then be listed under the ACTA APOSTOLICAE SEDIS.
In 1945, as the government and press at the time implied, his Excommunication took place.
There is no evidence to support this, apart from gossip. Moreso, the Holy See has published all Special Decrees that have been issued. One for Duarte Costa has never been issued. http://www.vatican.va/archive/aas/documents/AAS%2037%20%5B1945%5D%20-%20ocr.pdf
I suggest that the wikapedia page is amended to reflect this (as I keep trying), with the correct evidence. However, someone is adament on rejecting the concrete evidence, in lieu of gossip and hearsay. Hardly what Wikapedia is about.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Titular Bishop (talk • contribs) 16:51, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- You may be correct - although I doubt it as he would probably have incurred an automatic excommunication. But, even if you are correct, if you keep editing the article in clear violation of WP's policies then your edits are likely to be reverted by other editors. In any case it is appropriate to discuss such matters on the article's talk page. Please discuss them there instead of my talk page. Thank you. Afterwriting (talk) 17:02, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
MotD Nomination for the Opening Ceremony of the London 2012 Olympics (27 July 2012)
We at the Motto of the Day would be extremely grateful if you could review a couple of "special" nominations for the Opening Ceremony of the London 2012 Olympics on the 27th of July 2012. Here is the link to the first nomination, if you can help. The others follow it, and you can add your own ones or improve the existing nominations, of course.
Thank you so very much in advance! –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:44, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Talk:Today (Australian TV program)#Capitalisation
Your attention is drawn to my recent post on Talk:Today (Australian TV program)#Capitalisation. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:13, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Appreciate the edit
Thank you for your edit changing "prepare" to "celebrate" regarding the celebration of the Mass on the article of the Catholic Church. I had not seen my mistake when I wrote the word, and I appreciate the edit. TopazStar (talk) 15:31, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
- No worries! Afterwriting (talk) 15:32, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Sgt. Pepper straw poll
There is currently a straw poll taking place here. Your input would be appreciated. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:56, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
"The/the" request for formal mediation
FYI, I have requested formal mediation here to decide the "The/the" issue, hopefully once and for all. Feel free to add your name there if you so wish. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:18, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Invitation to wikiFeed
Hi Afterwriting,
I'm part of a team that is researching ways to help Wikipedia editors find interesting content to contribute to Wikipedia. More specifically, we are investigating whether content from news sources can be used to enhance Wikipedia editing. We have created a tool, called wikiFeed, that allows you to specify Twitter and/or RSS feeds from news sources that are interesting to you. wikiFeed then helps you make connections between those feeds and Wikipedia articles. We believe that using this tool may be a lot of fun, and may help you come up with some ideas on how to contribute to Wikipedia in ways that interest you. Please participate! To do so, complete this survey and follow this link to our website. Once you're there, click the "create an account" link to get started.
For more information about wikiFeed, visit our project page. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask via my talk page, or by email at wikifeedcc@gmail.com. We appreciate your time and hope you enjoy playing with wikiFeed!
Thanks! RachulAdmas (talk) 19:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
John Donne is an Anglican, and Anglicans are Protestants, Therefore...
Anglicanism is a protestant tradition. There are few of theologians who would argue, but they are mostly fringe high-Churchers or Anglo-Catholics. Most of the sensible high-Church, all the Broad and Low-Church, and Methodists would agree that the Anglican church is a protestant church. Revert these two categories again on John Donne, I will be quick to advise admins for appropriate sanctions. --ColonelHenry (talk) 21:13, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- Why don't you try doing some research and get your facts straight before making such ignorant and unecessarily aggressive comments?! The prevailing view within Anglicanism is that its ecclessiology is that of a distinct via media between Protestantism and Roman Catholicism. Whatever most Episcopalians in the United States might think, in the Church of England (which Donne was a priest of) most Anglicans do not use the "Protestant" to describe their tradition. You will also find in numerous articles on Wikipedia that the distinction is made between Anglicans and Protestants. Therefore I will not be reverting my edits and I will not be bullied by your threats of so-called "appropriate sanctions". Afterwriting (talk) 09:50, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
- See my talk page and Talk:John Donne for references citing Donne as an Anglican and Anglicans as Protestants. You should learn your history. Any further removal of those two categories will be referred to admins as vandalism. --ColonelHenry (talk) 13:58, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for ignoring the proof I offered on the talk page. Considering that, I will be reporting you.--ColonelHenry (talk) 14:26, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
-
- Haven't you got anything worthwhile to do with your life other than bullying other editors? Your bully count of editors on this issue is now up to three. Very, very pathetic. I am not going to engage in your equally pathetic "dispute" just so you can try and get some perverted sense of satisfaction. Afterwriting (talk) 15:11, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Notice of Dispute resolution discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "John Donne". Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 14:27, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
- Hi, I'm a volunteer at DRN. We would appriciate your input on the thread. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 10:29, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 19
Hi. When you recently edited Nick Vujicic, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Evangelist (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 03:21, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
A bowl of strawberries for you!
:) HARSH TALK 18:23, 19 August 2012 (UTC) |
John Donne
Now that cooler heads have prevailed...can we plan on how to make this article a GA and work together on that and maybe more? I would prefer to move forward without any bitterness and focus on the goal rather than a mutual bloodletting. --ColonelHenry (talk) 14:12, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Andrew Cohen
Hello, thank you for your edits on the Andrew Cohen article. I have left a comment for you on the Talk page of that article and am looking forward to your reply. Thanks!Igal01 (talk) 19:24, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Vera Baird
Thanks for your input on this - much appreciated. It's the first time I've tried to edit a page and it's being a bit of a learning curve. Can you help me with two things please?:
- on the external references to articles - I was intending to create a bibliography with books that Baird has written. would it be appropriate to put the article references in there?
- someone, with just an IP address for editing, is inserting material which is against Wiki policy on Biographies of Living Persons. I'm unsure how best to deal with it. I'm simply undoing there entries now but I don't know how best to resolve.
I'm sorry if advice on this is not your concern. If not I'll try and get to the answers somewhere. But again, thanks very much for your input. Ianftwilson (talk) 14:21, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
-
- I don't have any personal interest in the subject of the article and I can't remember why I was ever watching it. My edits have only been style policy-related. At a casual look it seems to me that the information you have removed was adequately referenced and isn't against the BLP policies and therefore shouldn't have been removed on that basis. Such information isn't removed just because it is negative. If the information has already been reported in a major newspaper then that is usually sufficient. So it would seem to me that the only grounds you have for removing such information is on whether it is sufficiently notable for inclusion. Edits aren't reverted simply because they were made by IP editors. I am not clear what you asking about "article references". If you mean links to articles by Baird then that is only appropriate with a small selection (no more than three I would suggest) in the external links sections. Links in references are only for supporting information discussed in the article - not for providing external links for other purposes. Hope this helps. Regards, Afterwriting (talk) 15:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Thankyou so much for your time on this. I am very, very grateful. If you wouldn't mind keeping an eye on this page as I build on it over the next week or so I'd be much more comfortable in progressing with it. I'm feeling, as a newbie, that I need a guide.
On the information I have removed: I am sure that the removal is justified. Certainly, as you suggest, I don't believe it to be of sufficient weight for inclusion anyway but I think that there are wider arguments. I have set them out below and, if you have time I'd be (again) grateful for your comments. If it is too much for you I'm happy with that too.
(First of all I should state that the objection to the information is not that it is negative for the subject. For example there is an entry on a speeding offence - which may not merit the volume of text given it but its basic content is not contested.)
When I began adding material into this page there wasn't much to the page generally. The information I have removed was there and I, like you, assumed that as it was referenced to a newspaper then it was an acceptable entry. I thought it was a pretty feeble entry to have given the work Baird has been involved in over the years and I was surprised at the prominence it was given under a section heading "Controversies" which I couldn't see on pages of people from a similar background - but I assumed it was acceptable. It was only after reading Wikipedia's policies that I became convinced that the information was not appropriate. I'll give my rationale without detailed reference to Wikipedia policy as I'm sure you'll know what I'm talking about.
First of all it is necessary to be clear about and analyse the information being given from the entry and from the references. It's a simple sequence of events. The subject's dog - a puppy - defecated on a station platform. The subject went off to get a cleaner, as she did a member of the public remonstrated with her and as this happened a community police officer came over and was quite rude to the subject (this is verified by the fact that the subject subsequently received an apology about his attitude). A police officer came over and the subject complained about the attitude of the community officer. The subject then found a cleaner who reassured the subject that cleaning up the mess was no problem. The mess was cleaned up. So - in short - nothing really happened. As it was an event though in which a complaint had been made - by the subject about the policeman, not a complaint about the subject by anyone - a police process was necessarily undertaken at the end of which it was agreed - nothing really happened (and we're sorry for the policeman's attitude.)
So, the information is, in an admittedly very pathetic way 'sensationalist' and nothing more - this is the first contravention of Wikipedia policy - not to be sensationalist. Where the information deviates from these above facts the subject contests the entry (see below) which is also a factor from policy indicating the entry shouldn't be included. Going on - it is a 'story' that first surfaced and was 'blown up' by the Daily Mail (we may wonder how the Daily Mail was tipped off and informed of the 'investigation' - which was in fact a simple police process as noted above but we leave that aside.) The Daily Mail is a tabloid newspaper that deals in 'sensational' stories like this, particularly if it can be presented as an attack on subjects it has attacked before. (I can readily provide references of previous attacks on the subject by this 'newspaper'. It would be naieve - maybe negligent - not to realise that the Mail is a noted right wing paper (it supported Hitler before WW2 for example) and the subject is a notable socialist.) So here we have two further contraventions of Wikipedia policy - ie Wikipedia "is not a tabloid" and from that it is fair to extrapolate that it also does not wish to serve a tabloid's agenda as it is doing with this information; and secondly - mentioned several times in policy - that articles must not hurt living persons - but to hurt the subject is the Mail's clear design in their original article and the information put into Wikipedia assists the paper in its objective. Going on - the references out from the information that I have removed - as well as containing material in the Wikipedia entry contain many other statements of supposed fact that the subject contests (I have confirmed this through e-mail contact with her) - this is against Wikipedia policy. In addition the references out to the Mail encourage users to enter into a blog like feature their comments - you may check yourself but the comments are mostly very crude and disgusting insults against the subject. So this contravenes Wikipedia policy on references to blogs as well as, again, hurting a living person.
So to sum up I believe it is justifiable to remove the information because:
1. as you suggest may be the case, it is not sufficiently notable for inclusion anyway 2. it is sensationalist, serving a tabloid agenda 3. it contains within it and in the references it makes out, statements which are contested by the subject 4. it is unnecessarily hurtful to a living person 5. it contains references out to unsourced blogs for which different policies apply than to newspapers but it is being treated as a reputable newspaper sourced piece 6. the blogs referenced contain comments hurtful to the subject, a living person 81.155.226.151 (talk) 15:51, 14 September 2012 (UTC) Ianftwilson (talk) 15:52, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ianftwilson (talk • contribs) 10:59, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Beatles RfC
Hello Afterwriting; this message is to inform you that there is currently a public poll to determine whether to capitalize the definite article ("the") when mentioning the band "THE BEATLES" mid-sentence. As you've previously participated either here, here, or here, your input would be appreciated. Thank you for your time. For the mediators. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref>
tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{Reflist}}
template or a <references />
tag; see the help page.