Regarding Badwa, there seems to be some confusion, but I cannot take credit for something that I have not done, I have been wrongly credited to the edit.
The name Badwa बडवा could perhaps be derived from the Marathi word badavane बडवणे or to hit. At Pandharpur Vitthal temple, the temple priests are called Badave बडवे. Thanks. Yogesh Khandke ( talk) 03:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
You really had a bad month! Sorry to hear about your allowance....seems you were a victim of Phishing scam! I (and many other guys) will be happy to see you now once again back in action. Take care my friend.-- Anish ( talk) 05:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I figured that judging by familiarty and frequency of use, then Asmodai should be moved to Asmodeus..... Put in your 2 c worth here. :) Casliber ( talk · contribs) 10:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
This is my 5000th Edit..Hip-Hip-ho-ray!-- Buster7 ( talk) 06:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Please stop in at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 March 5 to view a timely and important discussion for all wikipedia editors.-- Buster7 ( talk) 03:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello Alastair Haines. While exploring the User talk pages of proflic editors, I somehow came across your name. I'm doing a research project at UCSC about Wikipedia and I see that you're very active member (with important contributions to several featured articles??). If you have the time, I would really appreciate hearing some of your thoughts and experience about Wikipedia. The discussion is already underway at my talk page, it would be great if you could jump in wherever you have a comment.
I look forward to it if possible. Have a nice evening! (And thanks for your time.) Rodomontade ( talk) 02:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I will visit Israel on 16-23 March. Leszek Jańczuk ( talk) 22:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
All's well that ends well. I second the advice to change your username. Happy editing! Mathsci ( talk) 17:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Welcome back Alastair. I found a matriarchal ant article I wanted you to see ( Mycocepurus smithii). No men at all actually, apparently they just clone themselves! Might be a sign of thigns to come. Best to be prepared in any event. Take care. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 21:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh dear, don't give the stronger gender any ideas! But yes, welcome back Alastair. :-) SkyWriter (Tim) ( talk) 21:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Welcome back! -- Buster7 ( talk) 06:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Alastair, it's good see things have been (somewhat) resolved. If you still want myself, or John to have a look at specific diffs posted on-wiki about you please send them on to us or alternatively send them to ArbCom. Best wishes-- Cailil talk 19:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I am musing on buffing up the prince of hell at some point, maybe sooner rather than later, especially since dusting off my dungeons and dragons books. I will have a look at the testament of Solomon online, but any fleshing out of material not otherwise accessbile online would be helpful.
NB: Have been trying to clear up some of the Proposed mergers page and noted a couple which you may have an opinion on - note Erech and Uruk as one, and Azazel and Azazel in rabbinic literature as another... Casliber ( talk · contribs) 06:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Ah!..I seem to have missed your home coming....but nevertheless.....welcome back! I am so glad to see you back on Wiki. The admins ultimately saw the reason. I am also glad that your friends stood by you. You have accumulated good karma with your generous helpful nature. So What goes around comes around ! Be well and take care.-- Anish ( talk) 06:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
"understanding of Jainism under your guidance"...you are very kind. But somehow I am not able to concentrate now on Wikipedia with continuity with demands of the job. Guess I will really have to squeeze some time if I want to see more articles of Jainism on FA list.-- Anish ( talk) 11:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks!-- Anish ( talk) 11:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Hope this finds you doing well. It didn't seem right to me that chastity and virginity are synonymous. I have clarified the difference. [ [1]] LuxNevada ( talk) 16:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Quantification.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.
For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. -- ImageTaggingBot ( talk) 19:05, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi, if you are free, I will like you to see Iravan, an article just expanded and give your suggestions. I am nominating the article to GA today, anyway articles about Hinduism take a long time for a review. Till then, I request you to read and if possible, polish the article. Thanks. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 06:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
The Christianity WikiProject Newsletter | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Orlady ( talk) 23:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
As you may have observed, an editor has started the GA review ( Talk:Iravan/GA1). I am busy for some days. If you have some time, please take a look and address prose-related problems.-- Redtigerxyz Talk 04:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I've noticed some edit-warring going on here. I don't know much about the topic, so it's hard for me to evaluate the actual material. Do you agree with the checkuser case recently filed; i.e., is the position advocated by Rossnixon and Osprey an unusual one? OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't want to get involved with this article, but I've just warned the other 2 editors about personal attacks, and told Hammy not to rise to the debate. Butlin may be being deliberately provocative, but if I AGF I guess I could say he's just - stuck for the word, sorry. Dougweller ( talk) 21:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm gaining Wiki-weight and my wife is a wiki-widow. I have a project in mind that requires your valuable insight. When I am ready I hope you can help. -- Buster7 ( talk) 02:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Monday is Veterans Day in the USA....Happy Memorial Day.....
.....-- Buster7 ( talk) 17:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
[2] Thoughts? ChildofMidnight ( talk) 18:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for you effort on my behalf. No Problem with the deletion at all. But thanks anyway. Ive created a new article (my first) and I was just trying to creat a workspace for it. The speedy deletion WAS fast wasn't it. I wish admins were as efficient. See Middle Class Working Families Task Force...a work in progress.-- Buster7 ( talk) 03:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Alistair,
Thanks for your encouraging words at User_talk:Muzhogg. I've been studying McGrath (mainly his treatment of Bhaskar) as part of a post-grad thesis and it's a world apart from Wikipedia. However, I'm finding the discipline of an encyclopedic medium very helpful. Even comments made in ignorance (or even malice) are simply a challenge to make submissions which are beyond criticism. Very challenging, but good fun.
I'll be sure to yell if I need to take you up on your offer of assistance.
Regards, Muzhogg ( talk) 08:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I just wanted to inform you that List of patriarchal cultures that have been claimed to be matriarchal has been nominated for deletion (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of patriarchal cultures that have been claimed to be matriarchal (2nd nomination). My understanding is that you are the main author of that article. Calathan ( talk) 16:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
The Christianity WikiProject Newsletter | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Wow, removing 3/4 of the Patriarchy article. Isn't that a little drastic? Who then was a gentleman? ( talk) 03:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Please see this report: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Request_concerning_Alastair_Haines Kaldari ( talk) 17:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Pursuant to your arbitral restrictions and as discussed in the WP:AE thread at [3], you are hereby topic-banned from editing patriarchy and all related pages (including discussions), broadly interpreted, for a year as of this message. Sandstein 05:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Although I'm on sabbatical from Wikipedia (a much needed one), I did notice this interaction here, and it's prompted me to think of the benefits and limitations of administrative action. There are a number of elements involved here:
Okay, fair enough. I think everyone here is in agreement that Alastair has a certain expertise in the subject of patriarchy. It is, in fact, parallel to his academic work in real life. As such he has an abundant amount of material to use for sourcing and an intimate appreciation of that material. If he were to see a source being misused, he would be immediately aware. Imagine, for instance, seeing an article on Jesus in which someone is using a commentary on the Greek of the New Testament to source that his name is really Jason. Someone completely unfamiliar with that commentary or the Greek of the New Testament wouldn't immediately know what to do about it. It LOOKS sourced. But, in fact, it's mis-sourced. Either the source is wrong, or the editor is wrong. Someone with both a knowledge of Greek AND who has a copy of the source would immediately know what to do about it.
Well and good.
But we have a problem here, don't we? Alastair was (either justly or unjustly) attacked in an earlier issue. As a matter of compromise the Arbcom put restrictions both on him and on his attackers. As a compromise, it was probably as fair as could be. It was like a judge yelling at everyone in the court to sit down and shut up.
Again, well and good.
But we have two competing goods here, and the question is which trumps which. Are we more concerned with wrong information and false sourcing on Wikipedia or on the integrity of an Arbcom decision that's been courtesy blanked?
I think we all agree that Arbcom decisions should be followed. But don't we also agree that mis-sourcing is worse than no sourcing at all? Non-sourced information is easy to see. It's normally easily identifiable even by novice readers as an opinion piece. But sourced information is generally taken to be correct -- especially by novice readers. And mis-sourced information, therefore, is infinitely worse than no information at all, and potentially damaging to the integrity of both wikipedia as a resource and the author's book itself. As an author myself, I'd much rather be ignored than misquoted into saying something opposite to my intent! And as a wikipedia reader I'd much rather not find an article than to have one lead me up the primrose path with false information. It's like having a GPS that loses power (you'll wander a bit) or one that tells you to turn left off of a cliff. WRONG information is much worse than NO information.
And in this entire issue at hand everyone here has been all concerned with WHO is involved rather that WHAT this is about. Well, are we a tabloid or a respectable encyclopedia? If we are a tabloid, by all means ban Mr. Alastair Haines from any subject he knows anything about, especially ones he has sources for -- just because we don't like Alastair Haines any more than we like Brittany Spears' choice of underwear.
If we are a tabloid, the Arbcom trumps everything because we are concerned with personalities and little editor squabbles. There are no exceptions and all must be boldly and boadly applied -- to hell with the article!
On the other hand, if we are a respectable encyclopedia, we should apply the Arbcom... with exceptions.
What fascinates me is that we've all granted that Alastair has been very beneficial to this subject and has made excellent sourcing. Alastair's issue with correcting mis-sourcing has been completely ignored.
So then this boils down to an admin wanting everyone to play nice and respect authority (very good!!!) -- with no regard for the actual integrity of the information at issue (not so good). The Arbcom should trump EVERYTHING except the integrity of Wikipedia articles. The integrity of the Wikipedia authority structure is not maintained if it contradicts the integrity of the encyclopedia itself. In this case the admin involved is cutting off the branch he's sitting on.
Well, that's tabloid time.
Let's all remind Alastair to ask for help if someone is abusing his restrictions to the disadvantage of the subject matter, on the condition that we are willing to in fact help him when someone is doing so.
But let's all make a committment to put the encyclopedia even over the arbcom that is established only to serve it. Sometimes two goods compete. The admin here has done a good thing. But he would be doing even better to actually look at the INFORMATION and make an exception here.
Or, he has the right and the power to treat Wikipedia like the online version of People Magazine.
His choice. SkyWriter (Tim) ( talk) 17:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
{{
unblock|your reason here}}
below.
Sandstein 05:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)Alastair Haines ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Both the restrictions and analysis are widely known to be without foundation. Remove block immediately.
Decline reason:
ArbCom decision appears clear and unambiguous, and does not depend on your agreement. -- Anthony.bradbury "talk" 12:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
I suggest that this be recorded in the ArbCom case's enforcement history. Ilkali ( talk) 13:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
As I mentioned above, the administrative answer is a strict application of the language of the previous Arbcom (commendable), with no (stated) regard to the integrity of the article in question or the issue of mis-sourced information. I must ask, as I did above: are the administrators more concerned with the previous Arbcom or the integrity of information on Wikipedia? If there is no conflict, block away -- but if there is a conflict between these two goods, which takes precedence -- the integrity of Arbcom or the integrity of the encyclopedia Arbcom is designed to serve? There are exceptions, gentlemen. Let's take a moment to see if it applies here, shall we? SkyWriter (Tim) ( talk) 23:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
An editor once observed that this article could be improved. No reason given:just a statement of opinion. That editor did not actually make any effort to fix it...or alternatively invite a conversation (at the talkpage) or seek concensus (also at the talkpage). Wikipedia practice encourages editors to place tags with little burden of proof. Please allow this tag to languish indefinitely at the top of the page, since nobody knows exactly what the tagging editor was worked up about. |
ROFLMAO!!!!!! SkyWriter (Tim) ( talk) 16:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Fads.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot ( talk) 05:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
{{Multiple issues|advert=March 2009|cleanup=March 2009|confusing=March 2009|essay-like=March 2009|wikify=March 2009}}
Congrats! Extreme Happiness to both of you. The following image reflects on focus, not limitations. The focus becomes each other....wonderful!....
-- Buster7 ( talk) 10:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
If you're engaged, or recently married, my heartiest congratulations! I trust she will keep you in line. If I'm not understanding this thread and the series of mispellings and other intrigues, please disregard my comment, carry on as usual, and make sure to have fun. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 03:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Catherine Hakim, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:
All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's
criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "
What Wikipedia is not" and
Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{
dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on
its talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 16:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Editor:Hrafn is intent on deleting this article....not sure why. The reasons for deleting vary but the intent does not. Editor oppression can transcend itself and create bitterness and hatred. Sustaining consistent, principled action is difficult when confronted by recalcitrant editing styles. I am more and more reluctant to do battle and, instead, I just do simple editing. Argumentation has its pleasure but it is not why I'm here. Be assured, I am steadfast in my quest for wikiKnights and in my support of your endeavors. Self control...cool as a cucumber...things in perspective...calmness. One good did come from this article. I met editor:[DGG]-- Buster7 ( talk) 14:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
As a researcher in this field (currently supervising a PhD student researching gender related issues, as a published author on gender issues, and having supervised a Masters student who investigated Hakim's theoretical perspective), I can see no good reason to remove her page from Wikipedia for any reason. She has published several books and numerous academic articles. My own line manager (a Professor) cited Catherine Hakim's work in her own PhD. Her views are controversial and unpopular with a number of radical feminist writers and activists (which probably accounts for the determination with which various people here would like to remove her from the encyclopedia). At the same time, her contribution to the academic literature is established and she should remain on Wikipedia.
Dr Rory Ridley-Duff, Sheffield Business School 19:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roryridleyduff ( talk • contribs)
The Christianity WikiProject Newsletter | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
John Carter ( talk) 21:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I think you may have been notified by email, but I thought it was worth my dropping in a note anywhoo, to let you know that Sydney Wikipedians are having a meetup this coming Tuesday, the 4th August. As you'll see on that page, we have two folk flying in from the Wikimedia Foundation who will be attending, and we have a great crowd of wiki types signed up to come along.
If you've never been to a meetup before, this wouldn't be a bad one to kick off with (we're all very friendly, interesting, and great looking folk ;-), and if you have, well come along again, why don't ya! If you've any questions you can flick the aussie mailing list an email on wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org aussie mailing list, or drop me a note on my talk page. Hope to see some of you there!
ps. If you've already signed up, and received an email, and a phone call, and a door knock, and are getting a bit frustrated with constant advances from enthusiastic australian wiki types, then I'm told you can print this message, and bring it along to use as a 'free beer' voucher, redeemable by our esteemed Vice-President of WMAU on the night...... ;-) Privatemusings ( talk) 22:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Textual criticism/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells ( talk) 18:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
The Christianity WikiProject Newsletter | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
One of the Vulgate manuscripts has two Old Latin parts in Gospel of John and some Old Latin readings in Matthew ( [14], [15]). Leszek Jańczuk ( talk) 19:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
The article Adamantius (journal) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all 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 {{
dated prod}}
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 {{
dated prod}}
will stop the
Proposed Deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. The
Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Crusio (
talk) 06:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Template:Generic tag has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. UltraMagnus ( talk) 08:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated Adamantius (journal), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adamantius (journal). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Crusio ( talk) 17:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi all,
It's meetup time again in Sydney - hopefully you'll be able to come along for friendly chat and drinks about all things wiki - topics will no doubt include the Chapter - perhaps with planning for the upcoming AGM, the general state of wiki-play, and the traditional candle lighting to encourage the mythical flagged-revisions extension to make its way on to the wiki. At this point, I usually mention that sitting wiki arbitrators are compelled to buy everyone a drink, but one of our number has taken a rather extreme route in avoiding this duty - if you have no idea what I'm talking about then you're probably busy writing and maintaining articles - but come along anyways on the 21st October, from 18.30 til late, to find out :-) cheers, Privatemusings ( talk) 21:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi! Alistair Haines
I am a constant contributor of articles on wikipedia on several subjects, mostly related to my country (India). I normally post my articles on DYK. I also write on religious subjects. I have prepared two articles, one on Church of Our Lady of Springs of Anjedipa Island at User:Nvvchar/sandbox/Miscel. and another on Fort Anjediva at User:Nvvchar/sandbox/Saptha Badri. But I am unable to find suitable pictures of the two churches and also their structrual details. Since you have been contributing Church related articles and also reviewing articles on India, can you help me with finding suitable photos and some references to further expand the articles?. I want to post both the articles with a single hook on DYK, and if you are comfortable with the artciles can you nominate them with any due editing? Thanks.-- Nvvchar ( talk) 14:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi. We meet after a long time. Remember Vithoba. Can you please take some time out to look at Kanhopatra, taking in consideration FA criteria and copyediting a bit. The article prose size is just 10 KB and it has undergone copyediting once by the GA reviewer. Thanks. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 05:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Just like your NIGTC. I am sure we need these articles. In last time I have expanded Papyrus 5 (perhaps title "Oxyrhynchus 208 + 1781" will better), it is still not finished, but I want to do the same with all early NT manuscripts. In last two days I created two articles on sr-wiki ( sr:Синајски рукопис, sr:Ватикански рукопис), but it was really, really very difficult and too much corrections. Leszek Jańczuk ( talk) 17:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
This page was deleted by two different admins already. It was closed at AFD as delete. It has not yet had a WP:DRV. Please submit to WP:DRV through the proper process if you disagree, instead of engaging in disruption. Thanks, Cirt ( talk) 02:54, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
You're misconstruing several things here:
Arguably, you are simply edit warring and making personal attacks to cover over a small error of judgment you made some time ago. Please strike your hasty comment regarding disruption, which is ridiculous regarding restoring reliable, sourced content; and is something I must take seriously and address, via quite different channels than DRV, if it is not struck.
PS You may find Thomas P. Sheck's CV—including a " Review in Adamantius 10 (2004): 473-474"—revises your opinion on the subject, and this list of notable Italian religious studies organisations ("The Group has been operating in Italy since 1994 and organizes meetings, congresses and seminars and publishes the journal 'Adamantius'"). There's other info, even online. Please stop being difficult. There was no consensus because people were honest enough to admit they didn't know enough to decide. A good example to us all. Alastair Haines ( talk) 04:43, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Adamantius (journal). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Cirt ( talk) 06:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
The article Brain Gender has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all 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 {{
dated prod}}
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 {{
dated prod}}
will stop the
Proposed Deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. The
Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
207.69.140.50 (
talk) 22:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Adamantius (theological journal), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{
hangon}}
to the top of
the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on
the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact
one of these admins to request that they
userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you.
Crusio (
talk) 17:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Please do not remove speedy deletion tags from articles you created, as you did with Adamantius (theological journal). If you do not believe the article deserves to be deleted, then please do the following:
Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. - SDPatrolBot ( talk) 15:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Please be aware of the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Alastair Haines attempting to circumvent deletion process. -- Orange Mike | Talk 18:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Wiki is so much fun! Kind of. For the edification of any Wikipedians resident in Sydney or nearby who may like to tear shreds off Alastair in a real life public forum, please consider coming to this free Muslim-Christian dialogue: "Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?" A somewhat more important question than those I find myself writing about in the normal couse of affairs. Everyone's welcome (except children, by management request). There's only room for a few hundred people and seats usually go quickly. Come early and get a seat while the Muslims are praying. Then be nice and give your seat to them, they're lovely, they won't let you. ;)
How's that for blatant advertising? No money involved though. :) Alastair Haines ( talk) 04:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.
Thank you.
A tag has been placed on File:Did Jesus rise from the dead Web Flyer.jpg, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be unambiguous advertising that only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.
If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{
hangon}}
on the top of
File:Did Jesus rise from the dead Web Flyer.jpg and leave a note on
the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any
citations from independent
reliable sources to ensure that the article will be
verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.
Rockfang (
talk) 09:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Alastair, I'd like to request that you remove the above file from this talk page and not use it in the future. Are you willing to do that?-- Rockfang ( talk) 04:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
If you're fast enough (5 days) to add more inline-citations, I'd say this one deserves to be on the front page for DYK. I had never even heard of "Israelian Hebrew" before (thought you were writing bad English, that's what got my attention on recent changes). Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 07:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
This talk page is long overdue for archiving. True, Orangemike did not seek a second opinion before deleting Del gruppo Italiano di ricerca su "Origene e la tradizione alessandrina" but I will provide one for him: deletion was correct. As an experienced editor you should know the importance of references. This article was totally slovenly: you had made no attempt to provide references or show the notability of the subject. Also, would not Adamantius (journal) have been a better title? Or if you insist on a long title, omit "del" and get the capitalisation correct: Gruppo Italiano di Ricerca su "Origene e la tradizione alessandrina". I suggest you prepare a new draft in your sandbox and ask Orangemike ( talk · contribs) for an opinion. — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 09:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
I have restored Del gruppo Italiano di ricerca su "Origene e la tradizione alessandrina" to User:Alastair Haines/Adamantius (journal). Now point me to the state that contains abundant evidence of notability. Orangemike was most certainly not slovenly - he just gave the wrong deletion reason: he could have cited Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adamantius (journal). — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 13:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the work done on this page. It's more complete and looks tidier.
Keep up the good work! -- Dampinograaf ( talk) 21:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
I added back the World Health Organization (WHO) definition for the reasons stated in my edit summary. Other recent tweaks I made to the lead are also explained in my edit summaries. If you are too against any of these changes I made, I feel that it is best discussed on the Gender article's talk page. I will not readily revert you again on this matter, though, if you revert me. I did not fully revert you anyway. I left in the changes that I feel were/are good on your part. I will rather discuss the matter with you before attempting similar changes. After all, I am somewhat familiar with your editing and usually appreciate it...such as your work on the Virginity article. Editor Darkfrog24, however, also mentioned in my edit summary, may object to the edits you made limiting gender to human beings...and may alter your changes before discussing them. Flyer22 ( talk) 22:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Unable to resist bacon's temptations, rogue editors have kicked off the Bacon Challenge 2010 before the New Year even starts! This is a fun and collegial event and all are welcome. There are many non-pork articles for editors who enjoy some sizzle but object to or don't like messing with pig products. This year's event also includes a Bacon WikiCup 2010 for those who may want to keep score and enjoy engaging in friendly competition. Given the critical importance of this subject matter, I know you will want to participate, so remember to sign up today and get started A.S.A.P. ALL ARE WELCOME!!! The more the merrier. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 02:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Please drop me a note when you recreate the Admantius (journal) article. I'd like to have a look at it.
I have a thing for dry humor (with or without the u), black comedy and theater of the absurd, if that helps any. ;) ChildofMidnight ( talk) 18:49, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Request concerning Alastair Haines. Thank you. Kaldari ( talk) 00:39, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Regarding Badwa, there seems to be some confusion, but I cannot take credit for something that I have not done, I have been wrongly credited to the edit.
The name Badwa बडवा could perhaps be derived from the Marathi word badavane बडवणे or to hit. At Pandharpur Vitthal temple, the temple priests are called Badave बडवे. Thanks. Yogesh Khandke ( talk) 03:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
You really had a bad month! Sorry to hear about your allowance....seems you were a victim of Phishing scam! I (and many other guys) will be happy to see you now once again back in action. Take care my friend.-- Anish ( talk) 05:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I figured that judging by familiarty and frequency of use, then Asmodai should be moved to Asmodeus..... Put in your 2 c worth here. :) Casliber ( talk · contribs) 10:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
This is my 5000th Edit..Hip-Hip-ho-ray!-- Buster7 ( talk) 06:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Please stop in at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 March 5 to view a timely and important discussion for all wikipedia editors.-- Buster7 ( talk) 03:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello Alastair Haines. While exploring the User talk pages of proflic editors, I somehow came across your name. I'm doing a research project at UCSC about Wikipedia and I see that you're very active member (with important contributions to several featured articles??). If you have the time, I would really appreciate hearing some of your thoughts and experience about Wikipedia. The discussion is already underway at my talk page, it would be great if you could jump in wherever you have a comment.
I look forward to it if possible. Have a nice evening! (And thanks for your time.) Rodomontade ( talk) 02:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I will visit Israel on 16-23 March. Leszek Jańczuk ( talk) 22:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
All's well that ends well. I second the advice to change your username. Happy editing! Mathsci ( talk) 17:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Welcome back Alastair. I found a matriarchal ant article I wanted you to see ( Mycocepurus smithii). No men at all actually, apparently they just clone themselves! Might be a sign of thigns to come. Best to be prepared in any event. Take care. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 21:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh dear, don't give the stronger gender any ideas! But yes, welcome back Alastair. :-) SkyWriter (Tim) ( talk) 21:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Welcome back! -- Buster7 ( talk) 06:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Alastair, it's good see things have been (somewhat) resolved. If you still want myself, or John to have a look at specific diffs posted on-wiki about you please send them on to us or alternatively send them to ArbCom. Best wishes-- Cailil talk 19:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I am musing on buffing up the prince of hell at some point, maybe sooner rather than later, especially since dusting off my dungeons and dragons books. I will have a look at the testament of Solomon online, but any fleshing out of material not otherwise accessbile online would be helpful.
NB: Have been trying to clear up some of the Proposed mergers page and noted a couple which you may have an opinion on - note Erech and Uruk as one, and Azazel and Azazel in rabbinic literature as another... Casliber ( talk · contribs) 06:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Ah!..I seem to have missed your home coming....but nevertheless.....welcome back! I am so glad to see you back on Wiki. The admins ultimately saw the reason. I am also glad that your friends stood by you. You have accumulated good karma with your generous helpful nature. So What goes around comes around ! Be well and take care.-- Anish ( talk) 06:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
"understanding of Jainism under your guidance"...you are very kind. But somehow I am not able to concentrate now on Wikipedia with continuity with demands of the job. Guess I will really have to squeeze some time if I want to see more articles of Jainism on FA list.-- Anish ( talk) 11:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks!-- Anish ( talk) 11:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Hope this finds you doing well. It didn't seem right to me that chastity and virginity are synonymous. I have clarified the difference. [ [1]] LuxNevada ( talk) 16:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Quantification.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.
For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. -- ImageTaggingBot ( talk) 19:05, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi, if you are free, I will like you to see Iravan, an article just expanded and give your suggestions. I am nominating the article to GA today, anyway articles about Hinduism take a long time for a review. Till then, I request you to read and if possible, polish the article. Thanks. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 06:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
The Christianity WikiProject Newsletter | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Orlady ( talk) 23:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
As you may have observed, an editor has started the GA review ( Talk:Iravan/GA1). I am busy for some days. If you have some time, please take a look and address prose-related problems.-- Redtigerxyz Talk 04:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I've noticed some edit-warring going on here. I don't know much about the topic, so it's hard for me to evaluate the actual material. Do you agree with the checkuser case recently filed; i.e., is the position advocated by Rossnixon and Osprey an unusual one? OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't want to get involved with this article, but I've just warned the other 2 editors about personal attacks, and told Hammy not to rise to the debate. Butlin may be being deliberately provocative, but if I AGF I guess I could say he's just - stuck for the word, sorry. Dougweller ( talk) 21:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm gaining Wiki-weight and my wife is a wiki-widow. I have a project in mind that requires your valuable insight. When I am ready I hope you can help. -- Buster7 ( talk) 02:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Monday is Veterans Day in the USA....Happy Memorial Day.....
.....-- Buster7 ( talk) 17:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
[2] Thoughts? ChildofMidnight ( talk) 18:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for you effort on my behalf. No Problem with the deletion at all. But thanks anyway. Ive created a new article (my first) and I was just trying to creat a workspace for it. The speedy deletion WAS fast wasn't it. I wish admins were as efficient. See Middle Class Working Families Task Force...a work in progress.-- Buster7 ( talk) 03:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Alistair,
Thanks for your encouraging words at User_talk:Muzhogg. I've been studying McGrath (mainly his treatment of Bhaskar) as part of a post-grad thesis and it's a world apart from Wikipedia. However, I'm finding the discipline of an encyclopedic medium very helpful. Even comments made in ignorance (or even malice) are simply a challenge to make submissions which are beyond criticism. Very challenging, but good fun.
I'll be sure to yell if I need to take you up on your offer of assistance.
Regards, Muzhogg ( talk) 08:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I just wanted to inform you that List of patriarchal cultures that have been claimed to be matriarchal has been nominated for deletion (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of patriarchal cultures that have been claimed to be matriarchal (2nd nomination). My understanding is that you are the main author of that article. Calathan ( talk) 16:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
The Christianity WikiProject Newsletter | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Wow, removing 3/4 of the Patriarchy article. Isn't that a little drastic? Who then was a gentleman? ( talk) 03:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Please see this report: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Request_concerning_Alastair_Haines Kaldari ( talk) 17:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Pursuant to your arbitral restrictions and as discussed in the WP:AE thread at [3], you are hereby topic-banned from editing patriarchy and all related pages (including discussions), broadly interpreted, for a year as of this message. Sandstein 05:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Although I'm on sabbatical from Wikipedia (a much needed one), I did notice this interaction here, and it's prompted me to think of the benefits and limitations of administrative action. There are a number of elements involved here:
Okay, fair enough. I think everyone here is in agreement that Alastair has a certain expertise in the subject of patriarchy. It is, in fact, parallel to his academic work in real life. As such he has an abundant amount of material to use for sourcing and an intimate appreciation of that material. If he were to see a source being misused, he would be immediately aware. Imagine, for instance, seeing an article on Jesus in which someone is using a commentary on the Greek of the New Testament to source that his name is really Jason. Someone completely unfamiliar with that commentary or the Greek of the New Testament wouldn't immediately know what to do about it. It LOOKS sourced. But, in fact, it's mis-sourced. Either the source is wrong, or the editor is wrong. Someone with both a knowledge of Greek AND who has a copy of the source would immediately know what to do about it.
Well and good.
But we have a problem here, don't we? Alastair was (either justly or unjustly) attacked in an earlier issue. As a matter of compromise the Arbcom put restrictions both on him and on his attackers. As a compromise, it was probably as fair as could be. It was like a judge yelling at everyone in the court to sit down and shut up.
Again, well and good.
But we have two competing goods here, and the question is which trumps which. Are we more concerned with wrong information and false sourcing on Wikipedia or on the integrity of an Arbcom decision that's been courtesy blanked?
I think we all agree that Arbcom decisions should be followed. But don't we also agree that mis-sourcing is worse than no sourcing at all? Non-sourced information is easy to see. It's normally easily identifiable even by novice readers as an opinion piece. But sourced information is generally taken to be correct -- especially by novice readers. And mis-sourced information, therefore, is infinitely worse than no information at all, and potentially damaging to the integrity of both wikipedia as a resource and the author's book itself. As an author myself, I'd much rather be ignored than misquoted into saying something opposite to my intent! And as a wikipedia reader I'd much rather not find an article than to have one lead me up the primrose path with false information. It's like having a GPS that loses power (you'll wander a bit) or one that tells you to turn left off of a cliff. WRONG information is much worse than NO information.
And in this entire issue at hand everyone here has been all concerned with WHO is involved rather that WHAT this is about. Well, are we a tabloid or a respectable encyclopedia? If we are a tabloid, by all means ban Mr. Alastair Haines from any subject he knows anything about, especially ones he has sources for -- just because we don't like Alastair Haines any more than we like Brittany Spears' choice of underwear.
If we are a tabloid, the Arbcom trumps everything because we are concerned with personalities and little editor squabbles. There are no exceptions and all must be boldly and boadly applied -- to hell with the article!
On the other hand, if we are a respectable encyclopedia, we should apply the Arbcom... with exceptions.
What fascinates me is that we've all granted that Alastair has been very beneficial to this subject and has made excellent sourcing. Alastair's issue with correcting mis-sourcing has been completely ignored.
So then this boils down to an admin wanting everyone to play nice and respect authority (very good!!!) -- with no regard for the actual integrity of the information at issue (not so good). The Arbcom should trump EVERYTHING except the integrity of Wikipedia articles. The integrity of the Wikipedia authority structure is not maintained if it contradicts the integrity of the encyclopedia itself. In this case the admin involved is cutting off the branch he's sitting on.
Well, that's tabloid time.
Let's all remind Alastair to ask for help if someone is abusing his restrictions to the disadvantage of the subject matter, on the condition that we are willing to in fact help him when someone is doing so.
But let's all make a committment to put the encyclopedia even over the arbcom that is established only to serve it. Sometimes two goods compete. The admin here has done a good thing. But he would be doing even better to actually look at the INFORMATION and make an exception here.
Or, he has the right and the power to treat Wikipedia like the online version of People Magazine.
His choice. SkyWriter (Tim) ( talk) 17:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
{{
unblock|your reason here}}
below.
Sandstein 05:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)Alastair Haines ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Both the restrictions and analysis are widely known to be without foundation. Remove block immediately.
Decline reason:
ArbCom decision appears clear and unambiguous, and does not depend on your agreement. -- Anthony.bradbury "talk" 12:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
I suggest that this be recorded in the ArbCom case's enforcement history. Ilkali ( talk) 13:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
As I mentioned above, the administrative answer is a strict application of the language of the previous Arbcom (commendable), with no (stated) regard to the integrity of the article in question or the issue of mis-sourced information. I must ask, as I did above: are the administrators more concerned with the previous Arbcom or the integrity of information on Wikipedia? If there is no conflict, block away -- but if there is a conflict between these two goods, which takes precedence -- the integrity of Arbcom or the integrity of the encyclopedia Arbcom is designed to serve? There are exceptions, gentlemen. Let's take a moment to see if it applies here, shall we? SkyWriter (Tim) ( talk) 23:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
An editor once observed that this article could be improved. No reason given:just a statement of opinion. That editor did not actually make any effort to fix it...or alternatively invite a conversation (at the talkpage) or seek concensus (also at the talkpage). Wikipedia practice encourages editors to place tags with little burden of proof. Please allow this tag to languish indefinitely at the top of the page, since nobody knows exactly what the tagging editor was worked up about. |
ROFLMAO!!!!!! SkyWriter (Tim) ( talk) 16:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Fads.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot ( talk) 05:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
{{Multiple issues|advert=March 2009|cleanup=March 2009|confusing=March 2009|essay-like=March 2009|wikify=March 2009}}
Congrats! Extreme Happiness to both of you. The following image reflects on focus, not limitations. The focus becomes each other....wonderful!....
-- Buster7 ( talk) 10:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
If you're engaged, or recently married, my heartiest congratulations! I trust she will keep you in line. If I'm not understanding this thread and the series of mispellings and other intrigues, please disregard my comment, carry on as usual, and make sure to have fun. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 03:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Catherine Hakim, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:
All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's
criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "
What Wikipedia is not" and
Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{
dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on
its talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 16:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Editor:Hrafn is intent on deleting this article....not sure why. The reasons for deleting vary but the intent does not. Editor oppression can transcend itself and create bitterness and hatred. Sustaining consistent, principled action is difficult when confronted by recalcitrant editing styles. I am more and more reluctant to do battle and, instead, I just do simple editing. Argumentation has its pleasure but it is not why I'm here. Be assured, I am steadfast in my quest for wikiKnights and in my support of your endeavors. Self control...cool as a cucumber...things in perspective...calmness. One good did come from this article. I met editor:[DGG]-- Buster7 ( talk) 14:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
As a researcher in this field (currently supervising a PhD student researching gender related issues, as a published author on gender issues, and having supervised a Masters student who investigated Hakim's theoretical perspective), I can see no good reason to remove her page from Wikipedia for any reason. She has published several books and numerous academic articles. My own line manager (a Professor) cited Catherine Hakim's work in her own PhD. Her views are controversial and unpopular with a number of radical feminist writers and activists (which probably accounts for the determination with which various people here would like to remove her from the encyclopedia). At the same time, her contribution to the academic literature is established and she should remain on Wikipedia.
Dr Rory Ridley-Duff, Sheffield Business School 19:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roryridleyduff ( talk • contribs)
The Christianity WikiProject Newsletter | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
John Carter ( talk) 21:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I think you may have been notified by email, but I thought it was worth my dropping in a note anywhoo, to let you know that Sydney Wikipedians are having a meetup this coming Tuesday, the 4th August. As you'll see on that page, we have two folk flying in from the Wikimedia Foundation who will be attending, and we have a great crowd of wiki types signed up to come along.
If you've never been to a meetup before, this wouldn't be a bad one to kick off with (we're all very friendly, interesting, and great looking folk ;-), and if you have, well come along again, why don't ya! If you've any questions you can flick the aussie mailing list an email on wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org aussie mailing list, or drop me a note on my talk page. Hope to see some of you there!
ps. If you've already signed up, and received an email, and a phone call, and a door knock, and are getting a bit frustrated with constant advances from enthusiastic australian wiki types, then I'm told you can print this message, and bring it along to use as a 'free beer' voucher, redeemable by our esteemed Vice-President of WMAU on the night...... ;-) Privatemusings ( talk) 22:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Textual criticism/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells ( talk) 18:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
The Christianity WikiProject Newsletter | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
One of the Vulgate manuscripts has two Old Latin parts in Gospel of John and some Old Latin readings in Matthew ( [14], [15]). Leszek Jańczuk ( talk) 19:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
The article Adamantius (journal) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all 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 {{
dated prod}}
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 {{
dated prod}}
will stop the
Proposed Deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. The
Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Crusio (
talk) 06:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Template:Generic tag has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. UltraMagnus ( talk) 08:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated Adamantius (journal), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adamantius (journal). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Crusio ( talk) 17:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi all,
It's meetup time again in Sydney - hopefully you'll be able to come along for friendly chat and drinks about all things wiki - topics will no doubt include the Chapter - perhaps with planning for the upcoming AGM, the general state of wiki-play, and the traditional candle lighting to encourage the mythical flagged-revisions extension to make its way on to the wiki. At this point, I usually mention that sitting wiki arbitrators are compelled to buy everyone a drink, but one of our number has taken a rather extreme route in avoiding this duty - if you have no idea what I'm talking about then you're probably busy writing and maintaining articles - but come along anyways on the 21st October, from 18.30 til late, to find out :-) cheers, Privatemusings ( talk) 21:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi! Alistair Haines
I am a constant contributor of articles on wikipedia on several subjects, mostly related to my country (India). I normally post my articles on DYK. I also write on religious subjects. I have prepared two articles, one on Church of Our Lady of Springs of Anjedipa Island at User:Nvvchar/sandbox/Miscel. and another on Fort Anjediva at User:Nvvchar/sandbox/Saptha Badri. But I am unable to find suitable pictures of the two churches and also their structrual details. Since you have been contributing Church related articles and also reviewing articles on India, can you help me with finding suitable photos and some references to further expand the articles?. I want to post both the articles with a single hook on DYK, and if you are comfortable with the artciles can you nominate them with any due editing? Thanks.-- Nvvchar ( talk) 14:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi. We meet after a long time. Remember Vithoba. Can you please take some time out to look at Kanhopatra, taking in consideration FA criteria and copyediting a bit. The article prose size is just 10 KB and it has undergone copyediting once by the GA reviewer. Thanks. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 05:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Just like your NIGTC. I am sure we need these articles. In last time I have expanded Papyrus 5 (perhaps title "Oxyrhynchus 208 + 1781" will better), it is still not finished, but I want to do the same with all early NT manuscripts. In last two days I created two articles on sr-wiki ( sr:Синајски рукопис, sr:Ватикански рукопис), but it was really, really very difficult and too much corrections. Leszek Jańczuk ( talk) 17:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
This page was deleted by two different admins already. It was closed at AFD as delete. It has not yet had a WP:DRV. Please submit to WP:DRV through the proper process if you disagree, instead of engaging in disruption. Thanks, Cirt ( talk) 02:54, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
You're misconstruing several things here:
Arguably, you are simply edit warring and making personal attacks to cover over a small error of judgment you made some time ago. Please strike your hasty comment regarding disruption, which is ridiculous regarding restoring reliable, sourced content; and is something I must take seriously and address, via quite different channels than DRV, if it is not struck.
PS You may find Thomas P. Sheck's CV—including a " Review in Adamantius 10 (2004): 473-474"—revises your opinion on the subject, and this list of notable Italian religious studies organisations ("The Group has been operating in Italy since 1994 and organizes meetings, congresses and seminars and publishes the journal 'Adamantius'"). There's other info, even online. Please stop being difficult. There was no consensus because people were honest enough to admit they didn't know enough to decide. A good example to us all. Alastair Haines ( talk) 04:43, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Adamantius (journal). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Cirt ( talk) 06:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
The article Brain Gender has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all 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 {{
dated prod}}
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 {{
dated prod}}
will stop the
Proposed Deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. The
Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
207.69.140.50 (
talk) 22:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Adamantius (theological journal), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{
hangon}}
to the top of
the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on
the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact
one of these admins to request that they
userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you.
Crusio (
talk) 17:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Please do not remove speedy deletion tags from articles you created, as you did with Adamantius (theological journal). If you do not believe the article deserves to be deleted, then please do the following:
Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. - SDPatrolBot ( talk) 15:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Please be aware of the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Alastair Haines attempting to circumvent deletion process. -- Orange Mike | Talk 18:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Wiki is so much fun! Kind of. For the edification of any Wikipedians resident in Sydney or nearby who may like to tear shreds off Alastair in a real life public forum, please consider coming to this free Muslim-Christian dialogue: "Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?" A somewhat more important question than those I find myself writing about in the normal couse of affairs. Everyone's welcome (except children, by management request). There's only room for a few hundred people and seats usually go quickly. Come early and get a seat while the Muslims are praying. Then be nice and give your seat to them, they're lovely, they won't let you. ;)
How's that for blatant advertising? No money involved though. :) Alastair Haines ( talk) 04:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.
Thank you.
A tag has been placed on File:Did Jesus rise from the dead Web Flyer.jpg, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be unambiguous advertising that only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.
If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{
hangon}}
on the top of
File:Did Jesus rise from the dead Web Flyer.jpg and leave a note on
the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any
citations from independent
reliable sources to ensure that the article will be
verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.
Rockfang (
talk) 09:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Alastair, I'd like to request that you remove the above file from this talk page and not use it in the future. Are you willing to do that?-- Rockfang ( talk) 04:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
If you're fast enough (5 days) to add more inline-citations, I'd say this one deserves to be on the front page for DYK. I had never even heard of "Israelian Hebrew" before (thought you were writing bad English, that's what got my attention on recent changes). Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 07:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
This talk page is long overdue for archiving. True, Orangemike did not seek a second opinion before deleting Del gruppo Italiano di ricerca su "Origene e la tradizione alessandrina" but I will provide one for him: deletion was correct. As an experienced editor you should know the importance of references. This article was totally slovenly: you had made no attempt to provide references or show the notability of the subject. Also, would not Adamantius (journal) have been a better title? Or if you insist on a long title, omit "del" and get the capitalisation correct: Gruppo Italiano di Ricerca su "Origene e la tradizione alessandrina". I suggest you prepare a new draft in your sandbox and ask Orangemike ( talk · contribs) for an opinion. — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 09:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
I have restored Del gruppo Italiano di ricerca su "Origene e la tradizione alessandrina" to User:Alastair Haines/Adamantius (journal). Now point me to the state that contains abundant evidence of notability. Orangemike was most certainly not slovenly - he just gave the wrong deletion reason: he could have cited Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adamantius (journal). — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 13:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the work done on this page. It's more complete and looks tidier.
Keep up the good work! -- Dampinograaf ( talk) 21:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
I added back the World Health Organization (WHO) definition for the reasons stated in my edit summary. Other recent tweaks I made to the lead are also explained in my edit summaries. If you are too against any of these changes I made, I feel that it is best discussed on the Gender article's talk page. I will not readily revert you again on this matter, though, if you revert me. I did not fully revert you anyway. I left in the changes that I feel were/are good on your part. I will rather discuss the matter with you before attempting similar changes. After all, I am somewhat familiar with your editing and usually appreciate it...such as your work on the Virginity article. Editor Darkfrog24, however, also mentioned in my edit summary, may object to the edits you made limiting gender to human beings...and may alter your changes before discussing them. Flyer22 ( talk) 22:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Unable to resist bacon's temptations, rogue editors have kicked off the Bacon Challenge 2010 before the New Year even starts! This is a fun and collegial event and all are welcome. There are many non-pork articles for editors who enjoy some sizzle but object to or don't like messing with pig products. This year's event also includes a Bacon WikiCup 2010 for those who may want to keep score and enjoy engaging in friendly competition. Given the critical importance of this subject matter, I know you will want to participate, so remember to sign up today and get started A.S.A.P. ALL ARE WELCOME!!! The more the merrier. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 02:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Please drop me a note when you recreate the Admantius (journal) article. I'd like to have a look at it.
I have a thing for dry humor (with or without the u), black comedy and theater of the absurd, if that helps any. ;) ChildofMidnight ( talk) 18:49, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Request concerning Alastair Haines. Thank you. Kaldari ( talk) 00:39, 6 December 2009 (UTC)