User talk:ADM

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Sandbox

Archives[edit]

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Deletion request by user:Avraham[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 22:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment : I did not find this to be controversial at all and did not expect ANY controversial responses. So, if I was involved in such a debate, it was purely on an accidental basis. I also forgot about my pledge, and was not aware that it was still binding after over a year without problems. I think most Jews on Wikipedia should not consider me as their enemy, and should also peacefully acknowledge that there have been abuse problems in the Jewish community, just like in the Catholic Church. ADM (talk) 22:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


Unblock request of ADM[edit]

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

ADM (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

I did not mean to offend, I thought it was every Wikipedian's job to get involved in controversial topics

Decline reason:

No. You previously had a "last chance". Your behavior does not inspire confidence in the good that another would do. - Philippe 03:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page for as long as you are blocked.

I was blocked again by user:SarekOfVulcan. I would like to discuss with him any new terms of a truce, if there can be any. ADM (talk) 23:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Truce? If you see editing Wikipedia as a WP:BATTLE, then I don't think this discussion will get very far. Besides, your previous unblock was clearly stated to be a last chance, so "oops, I forgot" doesn't inspire confidence. (Sorry I didn't post a block notice myself, my connection went wonky.) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I meant it as an agreement, not a treaty. Everything should be based on agreements, not blank prohibitions. I don't know how it was determined that it was my last chance, that seems to have a somewhat arbitrary judgement. Do you know of an effective way to oppose arbitrary decisions ? ADM (talk) 00:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Regarding the subject at hand, it is in the news right now, so I was just reading on a given topic which can no longer be concealed. See for instance in The Daily Telegraph. [1][2] ADM (talk) 00:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I will not decline the unblock request, but language such as "truce" indicates that user maintains their perception that it is their job to "battle" to get their information on wikipedia, and accepts this as a setback in an ongoing "skirmish". That is not how wikipedia works. Editing the encyclopedia is a privilege conditional on abiding by its policies, and there is a history here of non-abidance. -- Avi (talk) 00:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't really reflect that, it merely reflects my view about legal positivism, the legal doctrine advocated by Hans Kelsen that laws and policies are merely conventions between human beings. This also happens to be the position adopted by Wikipedia, since it freely allows its editors to adopt most of its policies. ADM (talk) 00:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi ADM. Even if you had forgotten your pledge, and even if you created that article in good faith, your openly anti-Jewish attack on people on the AfD discussion strongly suggests that you are too biased to edit articles related to Jewish topics in an NPOV manner - I don't think you should be editing any Jewish topics, never mind contentious ones. And if you can't discuss things without resorting to personal abuse, I really don't think you should be here at all. -- Boing! said Zebedee 04:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't recognize any right not to edit Jewish topics. I think it is illegimate for instance, to forbid men from writing about feminist topics even though they are irredeemably of another gender. The same thing could perhaps be said about black topics or white topics. As long as there is a demonstration of good faith, and even in a serious state of error, there shouldn't be any reasonable limits to well-sourced editing. Not following this principle, I feel, could lead to some serious discriminations that would most likely cripple the Wikipedia project. For instance, I don't mind the fact that several Jewish editors may have openly disagreed with me, but I was shocked that they disagreed with me exclusively because of their real-life personal identity and not because of other concerns on a more rational, encyclopedic level. ADM (talk) 05:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, this is great example of the strategy you showed in the AfD discussion - arguing against what other people aren't saying. I did not say you should be banned from editing Jewish articles because you are not Jewish, I said you should be banned because of your openly anti-Jewish attack on others. You have repeatedly made openly aggressive and abusive anti-Jewish comments. Of course men can edit articles related to feminism, provided they show good faith, but I'd expect an editor who repeatedly showed an aggressive and abusive anti-feminist attitude to be banned from doing so. You exhibited exceptionally bad faith in the recent AfD discussion, and are continuing to do so now by insisting that those who disagreed with you were doing so "exclusively because of their real-life personal identity" - every commentator I saw who opined that your article should be deleted gave what seemed to me to be rational reasons why they did not think it was of encyclopedic quality. If you want to stand any chance of having your block listed, I really think you need to be showing some contrition for your abusive behaviour yesterday, rather than repeating your allegations here -- Boing! said Zebedee 07:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I can't show contrition because the allegations are false, and because my accusers are displaying bad faith. It was in no sense my article ; I totally repudiate any perceived connection to it because I was just performing a WP:FORK. Not all forks are bad, and I was genuinely under the impression that this was not original research, and that it would be accepted as a matter of historical fact. ADM (talk) 08:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
So the allegation that you abused those you disagreed with as "Jewish partisans and zealots" and argued that their !votes should be discounted [3] is false then, is it? Or are you arguing that calling other people "Jewish partisans and zealots" is not abusive? Also, this is the first time you appear to have mentioned you were forking - where did you fork the material from? (Btw, WP:FORK appears to be about other sites, and doesn't see to be applicable here). And if you were genuinely under the impression it was not WP:OR, why did you not engage with those people who opined that it was so, instead of ignoring them and arguing against points they were not making? I think it shows that you either genuinely can't see, or won't admit, that you did anything wrong (even in being abusive to people). If it's the former, and you genuinely couldn't see that your article would be contentious and you genuinely think that calling people "Jewish partisans and zealots" is acceptable, then I think that shows exceptionally poor judgment. And if it's the latter, it shows bad faith - either would seem to me to be a good reason to uphold your block. Anyway, you have no obligation to answer any of this, and I'm not trying to convince you (your mind is clearly firmly set), but just to add my thoughts for possible consideration in deciding this unblock request. -- Boing! said Zebedee 08:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Look, what I was basically doing was using a rhetorical tactic known as poisoning the well. It's easy, it's dishonest, but experience shows that it is often very effective in bringing the other side, whoever it is, to answering questions that it does not want to answer. If I have to apologize, it would be for having done that, and believe me, I feel very sorry for doing so. Because deletion pages are often charged with unpredictable moods and opinions, it can be very tempting to employ rhetorical devices that are purely tactical, just for the effect of creating tensions. I am very sorry if I have done this. ADM (talk) 09:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The above statement by ADM, when read after reading the multiple and detailed attempts to try and explain the core wikipedia policies on original research and synthesis on the AfD page, indicate to me that the user still does not, or refuses to, understand our core policies and instead resorts to the fallacious arguments of ad hominem to try and prove his/her point. I think an unblock is unwarranted as the user continues to demonstrate a fundamental inconsistency with wikipedia policy and guideline. -- Avi (talk) 05:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

What I don't understand is how you claim that they're your policies. Are you a member of the apocryphal Wiki-cabal ? Only then would it be morally consistent to claim that our policies actually belong to someone, that they're the property of a few select persons. ADM (talk) 05:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The policies that each of us agree to abide by in return for receiving the privilege to edit the project. -- Avi (talk) 07:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

At the beginning, there were no policies, it was just be bold. This is the only policy that I really follow at heart, because it is supposedly the most important one, having originated way before all that extra legal mumbo-jumbo was added in. ADM (talk) 08:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Broken Rites[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

I have nominated Broken Rites, 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/Broken Rites. 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. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many ottersOne batOne hammer) 01:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

translation impossible?[edit]

There is a discussion going on whether the name of that German church body can be translated or not (it appears like this on the english pages of this church's homepage). One user changed the name of this Church (actually a federation of several Lutheran, United and Reformed churches) and it's regional member churches to the German form because he says their names can't get translated. so the article on the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Bavaria now appears under its German name because he says the "concept" can't be translated into English. Please go to the discusson page of the Evangelical Church in Germany and have your say --93.130.249.56 (talk) 02:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Article prods[edit]

Hi. I've had to prod two articles you created - Kathleen MacPhee and Terence Goodall. We'd previously discussed Terence Goodall, and my concerns remain some months later, so I thought prodding might be a relatively painless solution. My concerns with Kathleen MacPhee are, if anything, stronger - she is only known for her affair and marriage to Roderick Wright, and as a BLP it thus falls afoul of WP:ONEEVENT. I note that you are currently blocked, so this notification may not be of much value, but I figured it was only fair to pass it along here. - Bilby (talk) 14:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I've taken Terence Goodall to AfD - sorry that I'm doing this while you can't be around to comment, but I still think you should be informed. - Bilby (talk) 02:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Development and Peace abortion-funding controversy[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

I have nominated Development and Peace abortion-funding controversy, 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/Development and Peace abortion-funding controversy. 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. Hersfold (t/a/c) 03:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Dino Boffo[edit]

Hi I've deleted Dino Boffo as an unsourced negative BLP. Contentious material on BLPs really does need to be sourced. ϢereSpielChequers 11:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Roman Catholic sex abuse cases by country[edit]

Info talk.png

Category:Roman Catholic sex abuse cases by country, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. TheGrappler (talk) 02:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Merge Proposals[edit]

Please see discussion at Antisemitism in the Gospel of Matthew and Antisemitism in the Gospel of John. The content of these articles should be added to the primary articles on these pieces of literature, rather than as separate articles.Sbmackay (talk) 04:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Another proposal is to merge these articles back into Antisemitism in the New Testament. Sbmackay (talk) 12:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Mother of the Church[edit]

The article Mother of the Church has been traslated to Spanich. May you give me your oppinion about this?: es:Madre de la Iglesia

Thanks, God bless you!--Azure-Cross-Or-Heraldry.svg RubensCatholicus (Hic et Nunc) 04:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs[edit]

Information.svg Hello ADM! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot notifying you on behalf of the the unreferenced biographies team that 1 of the articles that you created is currently tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 1,841 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

  1. Robert Moynihan - Find sources: "Robert Moynihan" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 08:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Gender of the Holy Spirit for deletion[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

A discussion has begun about whether the article Gender of the Holy Spirit, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gender of the Holy Spirit until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Pburka (talk) 15:39, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


Nomination of Zionism and Nazism (Doctoral Thesis) for deletion[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

A discussion has begun about whether the article Zionism and Nazism (Doctoral Thesis), which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zionism and Nazism (Doctoral Thesis) until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Marokwitz (talk) 07:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Disambig manual of style[edit]

You created the disambig page Groth on 6 October 2009. The style used does not conform to the disambig manual of style (executive summary: no punctuation after entries, use a comma plus sentence fragment to describe entry). You have probably read that by now, but just in case, I thought I'd mention it. Cheers, Jason Quinn (talk) 23:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

AfD[edit]

Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evolutionism (2nd nomination), since you contributed to the article. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:39, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Catholics United for the Faith[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Catholics United for the Faith has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No reliable sources provided or found to establish the notability of this organization.

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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. —KuyaBriBriTalk 18:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Society for the Prevention of Infanticide[edit]

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

A tag has been placed on Society for the Prevention of Infanticide requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject of the article is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} at the top of the article, immediately below the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate), and providing your reasons for contesting on the article's talk page, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. You may freely add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

You may want to read the guidelines for specific types of articles: biographies, websites, bands, or companies. Yworo (talk) 15:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of U.S. Catholic[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article U.S. Catholic has been proposed for deletion. The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:38, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Sexual abuse scandal in the Anglican Diocese of Sydney for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sexual abuse scandal in the Anglican Diocese of Sydney is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sexual abuse scandal in the Anglican Diocese of Sydney until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Bilby (talk) 04:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Abuse scandal in the Sisters of Mercy for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Abuse scandal in the Sisters of Mercy is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abuse scandal in the Sisters of Mercy until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Bilby (talk) 09:51, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:Violations of clerical celibacy[edit]

Category:Violations of clerical celibacy, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Robofish (talk) 23:40, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Great Catholic Monarch for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Great Catholic Monarch is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Great Catholic Monarch until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. – Fayenatic London 19:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Natural marriage[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Natural marriage has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Almost completely unsourced, everything that the term refers to has a real article (eg. Catholic marriage, LGBT rights opposition) but the term has enough meanings that it isn't a suitable redirect and is infrequently enough used that there's no point in a disambiguation page for people searching on it.

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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 00:14, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Natural marriage for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Natural marriage is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natural marriage until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 14:42, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Theo Sandfort[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Theo Sandfort requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Sturunner (talk) 22:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 16:39, 7 May 2014 (UTC)