User talk:Haymaker/archive 6

Talk Page Archives:
Archive 1 (November 2006 – October 2008)
Archive 2 (October 2008 – August 2009)
Archive 3 (August 2009 – June 2010)

Reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. –xeno^talk 12:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I need some Republican Bias.

Sorry about the Hawaii Republican Party article I am trying to remember the sources I used off the top of my head.

It needs some balancing can you help?

It is quite difficult to find anything good they did.

(Also pardon my animosity, they tend to treat people like dirt, and I am what Republicans refer to as a "Jap".) -Hawaii Samurai (talk) 09:34, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Edward Heath

You appear to be involved in an edit war with another user over statements about Enoch Powell in the article on Edward Heath. I have added some citation needed tags to some of the statements. Please could you add appropriate citations. I have asked the other user to give you some time to find the citations. If you cannot provide citations within a reasonable period, then his/her deleting the statements would be reasonable.--Toddy1 (talk) 16:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Anne Stanback

The article Anne Stanback has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article lacking in "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources" fails WP:BIO

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. Lionel (talk) 21:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Hawaii Republican Party

Ok I consolidated, cited and cleaned-up some of this article.

FYI: I actually encountered Linda Lingle in person, she seems ok, but in my opinion is a moderate or slightly liberal. I heard secondhand rumors about the other two Aiona tends to go-off about his Christian agenda and Djou from what I hear is smarter that he sounds, I sort of think of him as a miser.

Pardon the tangent, I found the book No Ordinary Man by Mary Richards about William F. Quinn. It seemed he was a moderate but oblivious to why everyone was so pissed-off with the Republicans.

If you want a rant in the other direction there is Hawaiian Sovereignty: Do the Facts Matter? by Thurston Twigg-Smith which is online. I have been looking to this book for an opposing perspective.

But my main sources have been Shoal of Time by Gavan Daws and The Hawaiian Kingdom trilogy by Ralph S. Kuykendall the latter being a mammoth.

In other words, I welcome opposing perspective and improvements to this article. Hawaii Samurai (talk) 07:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Hawaii Republican Party

Never mind I converted the history into a timeline. Do whatever the hell you want with it. I don’t want anything more to do with that blasted article.

Good riddings,
Hawaii Samurai (talk) 09:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

GOCE Backlog Elimination Drive invitation

There are currently 2,744 articles in the backlog. You can help us! Join the September 2010 drive today!

The Guild of Copy-Editors – September 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive The Wikipedia Guild of Copy-Editors invite you to participate in the September 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive, a month-long effort to reduce the backlog of articles that require copy-editing. The drive will begin on 1 September at 00:00 (UTC) and will end on 30 September at 23:59 (UTC). The goals for this drive are to eliminate 2008 from the queue and to reduce the backlog to fewer than 5,000 articles. Sign-up has already begun at the September drive page, and will be open throughout the drive. If you have any questions or concerns, please leave a message on the drive's talk page. Before you begin copy-editing, please carefully read the instructions on the main drive page. Please make sure that you know how to copy-edit, and be familiar with the Wikipedia Manual of Style. Awards and barnstars A range of barnstars will be awarded to active participants. Some are exclusive to GoCE drives. More information on awards can be found on the main drive page. Thank you; we look forward to meeting you on the drive! — ɳorɑfʈ Talk! and S Masters (talk).

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of The Utahraptor at 23:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC).

Dante8

Check out the userboxes[1], as well as this. I hope it isn't her, but she's gotten a lot of advice on how to avoid detection for socking (both on and off-wiki), and changed her MO more than once. Dante8's "unique" topic interests are raising flags with me... big-time. I don't believe in sending things like this through private e-mail, so I'm "letting it hang out" on whom I'm a little suspicious of being Dante8 (et. al.) We'll see. Cheers, Schrandit! :> Doc9871 (talk) 07:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of 2B (magazine)

An article that you have been involved in editing, 2B (magazine), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2B (magazine) (2nd nomination). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Lionel (talk) 00:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello. You have a new message at Lionelt's talk page.

Youth Pride

I notice you blanked some well-sourced content on Youth Pride, in addition to restoring a prod tag. This resulted in my erroneously deleting the article due to its having an expired prod. I have just restored the well-sourced version of the article.

An article tagged for speedy deletion or AfD should not have its tag deleted. Prods are different. Perhaps you mis-identified the prod as a different kind of deletion tag? In any case, if someone removes a prod for any reason, please don't restore the tag. Take the article to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion instead if you still believe the article should be deleted in its current state. Thanks. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

So I put a prod tag on the article Youth Pride, which was about a small local organization in Atlanta that went by that name. Because it was poorly worded (one of the reasons I proded it) a new user saw that it was up for deletion and thought it was about young homosexuals in general. He or She found added some pretty solid content about young homosexuals in general, but none about the Atlanta organization that the article was about. Because, though decent, none of the material was pertinent I undid the new users edit. I did, of course, explain all of this (and welcome the new user) on his or her talk page. I still think the Atlanta article should be deleted for the reasons I described in the prod though the current (misplaced) content should probably be moved somewhere, maybe a subsection in LGBT culture. - Schrandit (talk) 21:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you that an article about a small Atlanta group could be deleted uncontroversially, which is why I deleted it originally, neglecting to look at the article history.

However, when someone comes along and rewrites the article so that it's no longer about a non-notable topic, but instead covers a national movement that happens to have the same name, the old article has been eliminated (as you proposed), and the new article should be evaluated on its merits. Feel free to propose it for AfD or put a {{mergeto}} tag on it. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

You're right, I should have done that first. - Schrandit (talk) 11:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I notice you proposed a merge. I have created a section for the discussion at Talk:LGBT culture#Merge proposal. Feel free to edit my leading text to present your rationale. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks man, I'll get on that. - Schrandit (talk) 06:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Kitty Genovese article

I notice you have undone my edit on Kitty Genovese, restoring the racial background of the murderer. I agree that wikipedia is not censored, but removing information which is irrelevant and which perpetrates racial stereotypes is not censorship. You have not responded to my comments on that articles talk page - my argument is that my edit is consistent with all other wikipedia articles I can find: when race is not relevant to the crime, it is generally not included. This is not censorship, it makes the encyclopedia better by removing irrelevant and misleading content. Lord Spring Onion (talk) 12:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Rollback re-granted

I've granted you the rollback tool again per your request. Please be careful with it, and remember to use it only to revert vandalism and blatantly unhelpful edits. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Although you did not use the rollback tool in this edit, by using the default "undo" edit summary, the effect is the same. It's not clear how the edit you reverted is vandalism or unhelpful, so please be sure to specify that in your edit summaries in the future. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Edward Heath Talk Page

Please quote what I said on this that constitutes an "attack" on you. Multiculturalist (talk) 20:26, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

This, mostly. - Schrandit (talk) 23:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Appleseed Foundation

Thanks for putting up the copypaste template on that article. I investigated which content were found as copyright infringements and removed them. Minimac (talk) 09:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring on Powell related articles

I have protected the articles Enoch Powell and Rivers of Blood speech due to the long-term edit war that has gone on. From the edit histories, you are an involved party. Please discuss the issues at Talk:Enoch Powell#Edit warring and come to a consensus instead of reverting. Woody (talk) 15:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: FYI

I'm not sure why you showed me that...--Britannicus (talk) 16:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Schrandit. And apologies for my first post, I thought you were Robin Taylor at first.--Britannicus (talk) 17:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I did it again. I don't know why I keep mistaking you for him!--Britannicus (talk) 20:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Creative Commons

It is ok to use any of the content on Wikipedia on another site as long as I include in the new article that the information was taken from here and provide a link to the original article as well as this link http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/?

This is one of the articles that I was reading.

Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content

--Anonymiss Madchen (talk) 20:09, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

November copy edit drive

Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors Backlog Elimination Drive! The Wikipedia Guild of Copy-Editors invites you to participate in the November 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive, a month-long effort to reduce the backlog of articles that require copy-editing. The drive will begin on 1 November at 00:00 (UTC) and will end on 30 November at 23:59 (UTC). The goal for this drive is to reduce the backlog by 10% (approximately 500 articles). We hope to focus our efforts on the oldest three months (January, February, and March 2009) and the newest three months (September, October, and November 2010) of articles in the queue. Sign-up has already begun at the November drive page, and will be open throughout the drive. If you have any questions or concerns, please leave a message on the drive's talk page. Before you begin copy-editing, please carefully read the instructions on the main drive page. Please make sure that you know how to copy-edit, and be familiar with the Wikipedia Manual of Style. Awards and barnstars A range of barnstars will be awarded to active participants, some of which are exclusive to GOCE drives. More information on awards can be found on the main drive page. Thank you; we look forward to meeting you on the drive! — The UtahraptorTalk to me/Contributions, S Masters (talk), and Diannaa (Talk)

Creating a Wiki Page?

I gather you know how to create Wikipedia pages?

I don't. I can edit pages by cutting and pasting and cheating by copying other people's formats.

I was really surprised that there isn't a Wiki page on Dr. Virginia Uribe who founded Project 10 and there isn't a Wiki Page on Project 10 either.

If you ever have some spare time it might be a nice project :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottca075 (talk • contribs) 00:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Semantics

Is this really NPOV? [2] Lionel (talk) 06:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Generally Wikipedia uses "pro-choice" instead of "pro-abortion" (and, conversely, "pro-life" rather than "anti-abortion") but I figure it is beneficial to give as much information on Fr. Marx's statement as possible. - Schrandit (talk) 05:54, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Enoch Powell

Hi, Schrandit. No offence, but I think you need to cool it a little: I saw your remarks on the Enoch Powell talk & history pages before they were removed by another moderator. As you yourself say, "please comment on content, not on contributors." Thanks. Multiculturalist (talk) 21:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about? YOU are the one who removed my edit, it was re-added by another editor. - Schrandit (talk) 09:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I did not remove anything - certainly not intentionally. I see that one of the two offending comments has now reappeared (on the Enoch Powell discussion page). Telling someone to "get over it" does not constitute a rational argument about how an article should be edited. Multiculturalist (talk) 22:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

This wasn't intentional?

We seem to be talking at crossed purposes: I freely admit to rolling back your amendment to the article (the one which was accompanied by the comment "grow up") and when I did so - leaving the comment about you being tetchy - I discovered that my amendment didn't take. Presumably this was because someone else was editing it at the same time, and that's when I saw that a more suitable source had been added. What I am saying is that I did not remove your "grow up" and "get over it" remarks. Which brings me back to my original point: namely, that those sorts of comments are hardly appropriate terminology for Wikipedia. Just a thought! Over and out. Multiculturalist (talk) 20:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

That's not how Wikipedia works, you intentionally removed the remark. - Schrandit (talk) 05:35, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

NHGMC Citation Needed

I learned enough (a few years ago) about editing Wikipedia to create the page for the New Hampshire Gay Men's Chorus. I'm the webmaster for the group and I'm also a singing member of the group. I notice you recently added a "citation needed" for the facts about the number of singing members and the names of our director/accompanist. I'm more than willing to do this to keep the content active. Unfortunately I don't know exactly how to do this. Would you be willing to lend a hand? If I can cite myself as the source, that's fine. If I need a reference to someone or somewhere else (web site?), I can add that information to the chorus website so Wikipedia can refer to it. If you could assist, or point me in the right direction to get this article correct/accurate, it would be grealy appreciated. Thank you! Dullea (talk) 22:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

"Pro-life legislation"

We're in the midst of a discussion on my talk page over these edits. I'm arguing that, while Wikipedia respects people's self-identification, even if that self-identification is not strictly NPOV, non-people things like "legislation" or "tax policy" aren't sapient and can't self-identify - meaning that we must describe them in neutral terms (whether by choosing a neutral descriptor "anti-abortion legislation," by attributing the descriptor "a law which he describes as pro-life," or by eliminating the descriptor "a law which would define a fertilized egg as a person"). Care to join? Roscelese (talk) 07:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

CPC article: Warning

Schrandit, I've provided ample sourcing for all the statements I've made about CPCs' religious affiliation. I am, once more, going to revert your vandalism, and if you continue, I am going to report you. This is the required warning. Roscelese (talk) 06:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Your sources are reliable but they do not verify that text you have inserted. I'm not sure what you think you're going to "report" me for. - Schrandit (talk) 06:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Noticeboard

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.

GOCE elections

Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors Elections are currently underway for our inaugural Guild coordinators. The voting period will run for 14 days: 00:01 UTC, Friday 1 December – 23:59 UTC, Tuesday 14 December. All GOCE members in good standing, as well as past participants of any of the Guild's Backlog elimination drives, are eligible to vote. There are six candidates vying for four positions. The candidate with the highest number of votes will become the Lead Coordinator, therefore, your vote really matters! Cast your vote today.

Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors via SMasters using AWB on 02:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

List of largest empires

Hi there. We're having a content dispute at the article above - the list of empires has a large 216 entries, and currently the article sees fit to repeat this list 6 times! Clearly a waste of storage and bandwidth. A better solution (saving at least 30% and making it much easier to read and use) would be a table with a column for each attribute, sortable, as used in many other articles (see the discussion). However, a silent editor keeps reverting attempts to clean up the article, without explanation. Please see the discussion (currently nobody disagrees). Your comments would be welcome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.18.207 (talk) 21:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Silent Scream/Eclipse/Maafa

Come now, you can't have missed the fact that I mentioned that this edit was per the talkpage. Why not discuss it there like a civilized person, instead of assuming that you're so right you don't even need to discuss? Roscelese (talk) 16:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

This issue was already decided re: Michael Moore films. - Schrandit (talk) 11:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring

Is there any reason you undid my revision on Rape during the occupation of Germany? This was the original change which I undid because it was non-neutral and not supported by its source:

According to The Fall of Berlin 1945, the actions of the Russians against Poles, Russians, Jews, and other people considered inferior by the Nazis strongly demonstrate that the Russians were not motivated by revenge.

It looks like just a week ago, you reverted someone else for the very same reason: "Your sources are reliable but they do not verify that text you have inserted." Next time you disagree with a reversion please talk about it instead of starting an edit war. 96.228.129.69 (talk) 03:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

This has been discussed extensively on the talk page. - Schrandit (talk) 11:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Before acting I went to the talk page and saw lengthy discussions with the user who was having difficulty understanding WP:NPOV...they didn't seem to get anyhwere; that's the reason I didn't bother discussing before reverting. At some point a talk page can become dedicated to just one user's opinion and everyone else trying to keep it out. Where was the specific quote I reverted discussed on the talk page? I read through the talk page and couldn't find it but admittedly I'm a bit tired and might have overlooked it. 96.228.129.69 (talk) 04:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Chuck Baldwin

Please discuss the current dispute on the talk page - I've raised the issue there. Dougweller (talk) 05:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Shelley Shannon

Hi. It was this sentence in the Trial and Imprisonment section: While incarcerated in Lansing, Kansas, Shannon signed the Army of God's statement in support of the actions of Paul Jennings Hill.[7] If you click on the ref link and scroll down on the Army of God document, you can see that she signed herself as Rachelle Shannon, Prisoner of Christ, Incarcerated. --Kenatipo (talk) 18:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC) --Kenatipo (talk) 18:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Your point about when she became Army of God is well taken. I went to her page on the AoG website [3] and in the section in the middle called "Her last crusade" it's explicit that she was firebombing abortion clinics (the Alhambra) "for Jesus" in 1992 before her attempt on Tiller in 1993. In the next section titled "He didn't shoot Mother Teresa" she goes to the next level: "She believed that God could not lead her to do anything sinful, even if it seemed to be sinful to the world.", reflecting on a man who had just shot an abortionist. So, in wikiterms, can we cite her own webpage to reflect what motivated her and when? --Kenatipo (talk) 18:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Interesting article.

Hi. I ran into an article during my research that I thought you might also find interesting. Take a look: http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Christianity/Catholic/2001/01/The-Catholic-Abortion-Paradox.aspx Dylan Flaherty

Question about possible Spotfixer sock

I see you are an expert on Spotfixer. I'm wondering whether indefinitely-blocked-for-incivility User:Dylan Flaherty sounds similar to you. Do me a favor and review his edits. Technically, there's some reason to suspect they're the same, but there's nothing conclusive. Dylan Flaherty was certainly no novice. Cool Hand Luke 23:25, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Any thoughts on this? Cool Hand Luke 17:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Name change

The User:Schrandit links from signatures, etc, all went red, so I created a redirect to your new name. It might be good to add a note on your user page mentioning your old name, at least for a transitional period.   Will Beback  talk  02:15, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Umm, Will Beback, the rename was done with redirect suppressed. Normally that is an intentional action as it requires checking a additional box. You're an admin so you should be aware of how suppressing redirects works. I don't know but there is a chance your favour might not have been wanted. In cases like this it is generally better to ask first rather than act first. And to Haymaker, Hey and Hi. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 08:41, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi! Indeed, I did specifically request for that page to be deleted. So far there has been no confusion over who I am but I have been leaving notes on talk pages just in case. If any confusion does develop I'll leave a note but for now I'd rather have it deleted. - Haymaker (talk) 09:41, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The redirect is for the benefit of the community, and unless there's a harassment issue I don't see why it'd be a problem. Is there a particular reason you don't wish for the accounts to be connected?   Will Beback  talk  21:44, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, there is one lurking in the background and, perhaps more importantly, as it is my userspace aren't I entitled to do with it what I wish? - Haymaker (talk) 14:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

If you are concerned about a harassment issue then how is a semi-transparent name change going to help? I learned that myself. Unless you're willing to abandon one name and start fresh with a new name and new interests you will not avoid someone who really wants to find you. The redirect from Schrandit isn't for the devoted stalker, who doesn't need it, it's for the general members of the community who see a comments by Schrandit and wish to follow up with that editor. WP:SOCK#NOTIFY spells out the need to notify the community of alternate names. That covers a slightly different issue, but the principle is the same. If there's an undisclosed reason to keep Schrandit a red link please let me know by email.   Will Beback  talk  22:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I felt the user's request not to have redirects was innocuous, given the log action summary provided at the redlink:

A page with this title has previously been deleted.

...

14:04, 30 December 2010 Xeno (talk | contribs | block) moved User talk:Schrandit to User talk:Haymaker [without redirect] ‎ (user renamed)

On the other hand, I agree that having the redirects in place is much more convenient for fellow editors and without a pressing reason to avoid them, would be best provided. –xeno^talk 20:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Finally

figured it out. Do you still want help? Dougweller (talk) 14:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Very much so. - Haymaker (talk) 14:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem is, I don't think anything can be done about anything past, only about the future. Dougweller (talk) 15:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Enoch Powell 2

Hi, Schrandit the Haymaker! I added a reference (#1) to the Enoch Powell article from a book that says a Gallup poll in Feb '69 showed EP as the most admired person in Britain. I also added an external link (see also?) to 100 Greatest Britons where EP came in at # 55. --Kenatipo (talk) 18:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC) --Kenatipo (talk) 07:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Portland

Yes, there is a standing consensus against the use of "marriage equality" and "traditional marriage." For example, see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Traditional_marriage_movement, with the article in question not only being deleted but then having the deletion endorsed in deletion review; consensus at the similar "Supporters of traditional marriage in the United States" to move to "Opponents of same-sex marriage in the United States"; "Traditional marriage" was deleted in 2006 as a POV fork (it's now a disambiguation page). Similar articles and categories (cat:pro-family, cat:pro-marriage, marriage (Judeo-Christian)) have also been snow-deleted. Given this long-standing consensus, I'll ask you to revert your own edit, unless you can magic up some sort of consensus in your favor. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I do not see how that AfD translates to the consensus you are claiming. - Haymaker (talk) 03:40, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, if you think about it for a bit, I'm sure it'll come to you. Have a good evening. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

What is that supposed to mean? Is there a section in the guidelines or on a project page that you are thinking of? - Haymaker (talk) 05:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

RfC

As a side note, are you aware of the standard RfC process? You might get more feedback that way. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello. You have a new message at Salegi's talk page.

Roscelese

Dude, chill out. You don't have to be attacking her at every turn, it looks seriously immature. _{nonsense!this}Salegi^{speaking.drivel!} 10:53, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not, but your concern for my reputation is appreciated. - Haymaker (talk) 05:49, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

"Dr. Brian Clowes has written..."

In this particular case, I actually thought "some" would be better. Per WP:ABOUTSELF, "self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves...without the requirement in the case of self-published sources that they be published experts in the field." Since he is neither notable nor authoritative, there's no reason to include his personal opinion if he doesn't represent at least a tiny segment of "pro-life" Catholics, so the phrase would be better off either generalized or removed. If you want to name him, I suggest "Brian Clowes believes" rather than "Brian Clowes has written," as the latter could mistakenly imply that he knows something about the subject (please also remove "Dr." per WP:CREDENTIAL). Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

In what way is that a self-published source? - Haymaker (talk) 20:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I was alluding to it as a questionable source, though I suppose you could also consider it self-published since it wasn't published by a publishing house, newspaper, etc. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

That section is for self-published sources and self-references. If this isn't a self-published source what are we talking about? - Haymaker (talk) 22:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Please read my previous two comments, in which I provided a quote explaining how questionable sources have to be treated and explained that, as a questionable source, Clowes's book needs to have these rules applied. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Facts of Life by Brian Clowes is a real, physical book published by Human Life International. It's even on Amazon.com. How is it self-published? So what's wrong with citing its online edition to back-up your phrase "While the Church has always condemned abortion..."? Thanks —Geremia (talk) 23:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not the fact that the edition is online that's the problem (that isn't what makes it questionable - plenty of books are online). But being in WorldCat or Amazon only means that it exists, not that WP:RS problems have been addressed. (To pull a random example, The Record Shows, by Janet Pacella, also exists as a physical book and is listed on Amazon and WorldCat. But it's published by iUniverse, meaning that all Pacella had to do was pay money to have it published. There was no editing process: no one checked to make sure it was well-written, and if it were non-fiction rather than fiction, it would also mean that no one had fact-checked. The case is similar here.) No one is questioning that Clowes's book exists, but its reliability as a source is extremely low because Clowes is not an expert in this field and because the book was published not only by an entity other than a normal publisher with an editing process and/or peer review, but also by a political activist group with an explicit agenda. In the same way, we wouldn't provide the opinion of PZ Myers on Catholicism in a context that might suggest the opinion was authoritative (as the article currently suggests Clowes's is), because Myers is not an expert on Catholicism, has not had his opinions on Catholicism published by a peer-reviewed or otherwise reliable publisher, and indeed is opposed to Catholicism. Does that make sense? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Dr. Clowes has worked in this field since the early 1990's, he can be cited for more than just his opinion. - Haymaker (talk) 03:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Then demonstrate his credentials for us. Provide something he's published in a peer-reviewed publication. Provide a reliable publication that cites Facts of Life's discussion of church history. At least provide a reliable secondary source affirming his expertise. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

That isn't what makes something an RS. - Haymaker (talk) 04:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it is. I'm not going to bother pulling more quotes from the guidelines for you. You have fingers and you can click, you have eyes and you can read, so you're perfectly capable of self-betterment. I was hoping we could have a productive conversation here, where you would eventually gain knowledge of how Wikipedia works and be empowered to improve articles on your own, but as you seem to be completely unwilling to follow one of Wikipedia's core content policies even when people are spoon-feeding you, trying to help you is seeming more and more like a waste of productive editing time. I am removing Clowes's personal opinions from the article. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Your graciousness is overwhelming. Being published in a peer-reviewed publication is not what makes something a RS. - Haymaker (talk) 05:18, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Brian_Clowes_of_.22Human_Life_International.22 Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:CREDENTIAL

Okay, I lied, I will continue spoon-feeding you. "Post-nominal letters indicating academic degrees (including honorary degrees) should not be included following the subject's name in the first line (although they may occasionally be used in articles of which the person with the degree is not the subject to clarify their qualifications)." Including "PhD" conveys the false impression that Clowes is qualified. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:23, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see what the second sentence has to do with the first. - Haymaker (talk) 05:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Please read the above sentence again. The MOS instructs editors to omit post-nominal letters except where they serve to clarify qualifications. Kindly revert yourself. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello. You have a new message at Talk:Anti-abortion's talk page. Hello. You have a new message at Talk:Pro-life's talk page.

Ensoulment

It's cute that you keep inserting this factually untrue sentence while finding more and more unreliable sources that supposedly back it up, but...no, it really isn't cute. Please read WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NPOV, etc. etc. We already state that the RCC has always condemned abortion, so I don't really know why you bother. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and Common Era is the era we live in now. You learn something new every day! Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)