User talk:Malick78: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:03, 15 June 2007

Welcome!

Hello, Malick78, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! --BigDT 17:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the info:)Malick78 15:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plymouth Brethren

In regards to the edit summary you left when editing Plymouth Brethren, please see WP:OWN. No one of us has the power to make content decisions. Rather, they are made by the community as a whole. It would be helpful to have a source cited that mentions that these two individuals are Brethren members. (I am not questioning the appropriateness of the listing - just offering advice as to helpful edit summaries.) --BigDT 17:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bodkin Adams

I'm undecided as to whether Bodkin Adams was guilty in my opinion. I think it would be wrong to suggest he was convicted, he was not in his lifetime and died innocent in the eyes of the law. I appreciate your point but also heard him used as an examply in a debate recently in which they described him as someone who was innocent and wrongly accused. It's a mystery really, but I wouldn't want the article to give the wrong impression.--Couter-revolutionary 13:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, while Adams certainly wasn't convicted, that is also a long way from being able to say he was innocent:) If you look at the trial section you'll see what I mean. Maybe it needs some more fleshing out, but from what I've read it seems pretty clear he was guilty. It's also worth noting that the main book I cited came out just last year and was the first book on Adams to have full access to the police archives. These were sealed until 2033 but opened early for said book to be written (according to its foreword). Therefore, while it's early days, I'm sure a consensus will form among scholars that Adams was a) guilty, and b) his trial was prejudiced.

If you feel like continuing this chat, I'll be more than happy:) Malick78 15:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does the article imply he killed the Duke of Devonshire? Surely not. Why was he attending Lord Devonshire anyway, he practiced in Eastbourne, did he not? Best wishes, --Couter-revolutionary 22:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Devonshires own lots of buildings on Eastbourne's seafront - so they have a strong connection with the town. Whether Adams killed the Duke is beside the point (he may or may not have, he may also have failed to provide proper treatment - something he frequently did with other patients), more important is that if Adams was found guilty re: Mrs Morrell, the police would look into the Duke's death once again (the had looked into it once before but not thoroughly - since they found no will left. They found no will - because they looked for 'Cavendish' in Somerset House rather than '10th Duke of Devonshire' under which the will was lodged! No one had thought of that). Macmillan wouldn't have wanted more attention drawn to his death since the Duke was his brother-in-law - and the link between them was Macmillan's unfaithful wife. Furthermore, the Duke's death was sudden and demanded that the Coroner was notified - Adams failed to do so. Therefore the law was broken by Adams in this case in this respect. Fascinating eh? Malick78 08:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is indeed. I was actually unaware they had property in Eastbourne. --Couter-revolutionary 08:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just remembered, the Duke was also the Grand Master of the English Freemasons. A member of the Plymouth Brethren like Adams would therefore have considered him close to being the devil incarnate. That may have flashed across Adams' mind when giving him treatment... Malick78 16:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, I doubt that would have influenced his actions! Surely His Grace would have refused treatment from the good doctor?--Couter-revolutionary 17:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, what do you think of the page now? Btw, regarding your questioning of whether we can question Adam's guilt (you edited the "Guilty or Innocent?" bit a couple of weeks ago and mentioned it) - I think you can. After all, when people talk of Derek Bentley who was convicted, they question his innocence. Anything can therefore be questioned, as long as there is a valid reason. Do you think the page now presents one? Malick78 17:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:John_Bodkin_Adams_1940s.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:John_Bodkin_Adams_1940s.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Subtlety

I have reverted your edits that reduce the graphic wording. Remember, wikipedia is not censored. However it's very possible that there is a good reason for your edit. If so I apologize, but I would like to hear the reasoning. Hope to hear from you soon. Foolishben 18:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adele Astaire

I removed the trivia section because the particular information entered seemed particularly remote to the life and career of Adele Astaire, and because trivia sections are generally discouraged. Normally I would try to incorporate such information into footnotes but I really don't see how the fact that her brother-in-law was murdered in unusual circumstances merits inclusion in such detail, if at all - after all it seems to be mainly a transplant from the article on Edward Cavendish. Perhaps a brief footnote referring to the Edward Cavendish page might be more appropriate? Dermot 12:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closed Brethren

Hello Malick 78: I´m an Evangelical Baptist from Venezuela, a country in South America, ruled by Dictator Hugo Chávez, a darling from dogmatic communists you fight against; but this time I want to tell you on another completly different issue: The Article in wikipedia on Plymouth Brethren falsely claim Closed P.B. are same group as Exclusive Brethren or Taylorites. Because I`m historian and from P.B. background I know it is patently false From my own experiences in the early 1970s, there were huge differences between the Taylorite Exclusive Brethren and other Darbyite brethren groups, herein referred to as Closed Brethren. Because of the leadership scandals, some people left the Taylor meetings and joined meetings of the Glanton Brethren or Kelly Brethren, etc. A lot of these earlier divisions among Closed Brethren were healed in the later 1970s. While this difference is disregarded in the article, this article must to be reestablished to the original way., -by the way an University in your beautiful homeland had a Venezuelan Rector/President-, you must to know by first hand this is simply untruth. New Zealand had many Open, Closed P.B. congregations, and Exclusives are important as a religious (and in lesser grade as a political one also), group there. http:www.cultwatch.org is a ministry by baptists and presbyterians evangelizing to Exclusives. My mother is a Closed Plymouth Brethren, her group NEVER talk on Taylor or teach any doctrine linked to him. I work as columnist/colaborator for a Spanish Closed Brethren Magazine, Gethsemaní, led by Joan Soler i Rius. I have tried to fix it, but many users delete my work, my references to sources and links proving this. I think there are political reasons behind it, because Exclusives- nowithstanding any heresy a Christian can find in them- are supporters and endorsing right-wing politicians and candidates. This situation ofuscate and irritate so much to comunists, that these people tries to create guilt by association on Closed Brethren. Help me with the article please.

Hi, erm, I don't actually know too much about PB in general so I'm not sure how I can help you in your struggle with the nasty Venezualan communists. All I can do is wish you luck.Malick78 16:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reasons for changes in plymouth brethren

while reality from differences between two entirely diverse groups from exclusives brethren and closed brethren get censored in wikipedia, the article must to be established in my edited version. Because the other edit version is biased and founded on a particular point of view

@@ Line 52: / Line 52: @@
 *Hi, erm, I don't actually know too much about PB in general so I'm not sure how I can help you in your struggle with the nasty Venezualan communists. All I can do is wish you luck.[[User:Malick78|Malick78]] 16:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
+== reasons for changes  in plymouth brethren ==
+while reality from differences between two entirely diverse groups from exclusives brethren and closed brethren get censored in wikipedia, the article must to be established in my edited version.
+Because the other edit version is biased and founded on a particular point of view