Jump to content

User talk:ADM/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives

[edit]

1 2 3

[edit]

Hello. Concerning your contribution, Franz Maria Doppelbauer, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://books.google.com/books?id=vWoQAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA275&lpg=PA275&dq=%22the+diocese+received+a+truly+apostolic+head%22&source=bl&ots=BcbovdLHg8&sig=ipdhXonvWu8CmF-Zf2vUJcTzygI&hl=en&ei=gu21Saa3ApKWsQP8icH3CA&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result. As a copyright violation, Franz Maria Doppelbauer appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Franz Maria Doppelbauer has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 04:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The source was merely the free-use Catholic Encyclopedia, which I was only transcribing under a different article title. No problem then. ADM (talk) 04:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article does not have a neutral point of view. See the talk. --DThomsen8 (talk) 03:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The source I used was free-use but it was maybe not 100 % NPOV, so if it needs to be rewritten then a re-writing should probably be done. ADM (talk) 03:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly reassurance

[edit]

I recognize you may have seen me coming in behind you and editing several of you newest changes on a few articles. I want you to know that this should not be seen as a reflection of your editing in general but rather merely that I have a large number of topically related articles on my watchlist, and I tend to keep up with the shorter, easier to maintain articles.

Now perhaps you could care less, and I am being oversensitive. If so, feel free to ignore. I only realize that a good faith editor could reasonably become somewhat uncomfortable being in your shoes vis-a-vis my followups in a short period of time, and I did not wish you to feel uncomfortable. So carry on, and happy editing. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 15:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gilles Deleuze

[edit]

You made a substantial deletion without providing any explanation. The onus is on you to make the case for that deletion on the talk page, not to simply delete the material again. --Snowded (talk) 19:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was already a link at Wikipedia:Requested articles/Philosophy, so I did not make it up. Most philosophers have their major concepts, which we do not hesitate to write about distinctly, such as God is Dead. I am surprised however that Deus Sive Natura does not have an article, because it should. ADM (talk) 19:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying you made it up, I'm suggested that deletion was not the appropriate response. --Snowded (talk) 19:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like deleting content myself, but I tend to dislike seeing an article within an article, something which I find to be disingenuous. ADM (talk) 19:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the broad sentiment, but a paragraph or two to summarise, and then a link is better. Either way lets see what other people think --Snowded (talk) 19:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Enoch cat

[edit]

May I ask why you copied that discussion to the Freemasonry WikiProject? Thanks.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category creation Anyone can create a category, so if you think there should be one, you can add it. I would only caution that you may want to read up on what categories are and how they function and have in mind several articles to add before you create it. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obscurum

[edit]

Hi there! I noticed this recent dab page you created on the WP:PLANTS new article list. I was just going to delete it or PROD it, but thought I'd drop a note here first. Per WP:DAB, "Obscurum" would not be considered a "natural title" for any of the links in the dab page. Not one of those species is frequently called by its species epithet alone, rendering the dab page worthless. Your opinion? It seems pretty clear to me, but if you prefer other input, we could take my deletion request to AFD instead. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 23:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to think that any Latin term which is recurrent up to three times might well deserve a disambiguation. I will not fight very long to keep Obscurum because I have no strong ideas on this, but I am willing to defend it anyways because Latin terms are often read backwards, in that the Latin declension means that English grammar is often inappropriate for analyzing the eight different cases which show up in that language. ADM (talk) 10:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps Latin terms are read backwards (I took three years of Latin in high school but retained very little), but scientific names of plants are botanical Latin, not Latin, and will never be read backwards. Further, nomenclature requires that a species epithet never be mentioned without its corresponding genus. So you see no reader or user of this encyclopedia would search for "obscurum" in order to look up Calophyllum obscurum. So in the case of Obscurum, I would remove the two items that aren't natural titles and just redirect to Saeculum obscurum, though I still doubt that "obscurum" is a natural title for that article either. --Rkitko (talk) 12:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This edit

[edit]

Please see this guideline regarding editing Talk page comments. Perhaps using strikethrough would achieve what you want? --Scray (talk) 02:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link and the advice. ADM (talk) 02:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to help. --Scray (talk) 03:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Freemasonry

[edit]

I hope I didn't come across as being rude, or overly dismissive of your comments at the Freemasonry Project. If so, I appologize, it was not intentional. Having taken a look at your edit history, I note that you seem to have some misconceptions about the fraternity. I would be happy to answer any questions that you may have about Freemasonry, or act as a sounding board for ideas and suggested edits. Best Blueboar (talk) 13:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have that many misconceptions ; I just don't agree with your idea that it is compatible with Christianity or any other religion. For instance, the great majority of Masons today are members of the Grand Orient lodges, which are agnostic/atheist, like Plutarco Calles for example. Concerning the deist Masons, my views are essentially close to those of liberal Anglican leader Rowan Williams, who has serious disagreements with Anglican Masons because of an official CoE report which all but confirms the narrative that the Great Architect is none other than the evil Jahbulon. ADM (talk) 15:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I respect your view that Freemasonry is incompatable with Christianity. I don't agree with it (as I am both a devout Episcopalian and a Freemason), but I do respect it as being your opinion on the matter. What I am talking about is your misconception of the facts about Freemasonry, not your opinion of it. For example, you are wrong in saying that the great majority of Masons today are members of the Grand Orient Lodges. The majority are members of Lodges that are in amity with the UGLE and the 51 US Grand Lodges (at last estimate, about 5,000,000 world wide... while the various Grand Orients can claim less than 1,000,000 world wide). Second, while the Grand Orients do accept Atheists, by no means are all Grand Orient Masons Atheist. In fact, the majority of Grand Orient Masons are Catholics (perhaps not good Catholics, given the Vatican's stance on Masonry... but Catholics never the less). As for Archbishop Williams's views... both he and the Anglican Church as a whole have backed away from their concerns about Freemasonry (he now says that Freemasonry isn't deistic and that there is no incompatability with the Anglican church).
Finally, no... the Great Architect of the Universe is not the "evil Jahbulon"... the term is a non-denominational reference to God. For the Christian Mason (as I am) the term is understood to refer to the Trinitarian concept of God the Father, Jesus Christ his son and the Holy Spirit. Yes, those of other faiths will have a different concept of what this term refers to. The Jewish Mason will understand it to refer to Jewish conceptions of God, the Muslem Mason will understand it to refer to Allah. The point is, that Freemasonry does not define the term, it leaves it up to the individual to define for himself. I (as a Christian) may think that Jews and Muslims have a flawed concept of God, but for the sake of harmony in the lodge I agree not to argue about it and to use a term for God that we can all agree on. By the way, the term is not Deist... In fact, it was used by both Aquinus and Calvin long before it was used by Masons. The Freemasons took it from Christian writings.
Hope this clarifies some of your misconceptions. Blueboar (talk) 16:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but in my book, you are not a true Mason, but merely a pawn, because you have not yet attained the 32nd Degree, as described in Albert Pike's book Morals and Dogma. The differences between 2nd Degree and 32nd Degree are so vast that it is really two different organizations, which involves a vast system of lies and false explanations on the part of the lower-level Masons. When you get there, you will become a true Satanist, as understood by Pike's rendering of Lucifer, which is Light bearer. You will also have to perform the Knight Kadosh ritual, which involves spitting on crosses and cursing the Pope. After that, you will find out that there are major similarities between the Craft and the Ordo Templi Orientis, Blavatsky's Theosophy, the Rosicrucians, Martinism, Wicca/Witchcraft and Left-Hand Path and Right-Hand Path. By the way, I have conversed with arch-priests of Christianity who spend their time infiltrating lodges in other to re-program Masons and remove the occult elements from the higher orders. I feel like I am done talking about this and I would like to end the discussion right now. ADM (talk) 16:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, they are two different organizations. Freemasonry ends at the 3rd degree -- the 32nd degree is given by the Scottish Rite. And if all 32nd degree masons are devil-worshippers, does that mean that every child who's been treated at the Shrine Hospitals for free has been condemned to hell?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, all children are innocent until proven guilty ;). ADM (talk) 19:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I could become a 32nd degree Mason tomorrow, if I so desired... all I would have to do is pay an initiation fee, and sit through the degree. It really is that simple. The Scottish Rite does not make you go through each degree in order (it is typically given three or four degrees in a sitting, and you don't have to have taken the "lower" numbered degrees before you take the "higher" ones.)
The idea that all of this is tied in some way to Satanism is bunk and comes directly from Leo Taxil's hoax... suggest you read up on that. But... you probably would not believe anything a Mason tells you (as you probably think we are either lying or dupes). Try a non-Masonic source: Historian John Robinson's A Pilgrim's Path which discusses all of these allegations, and debunks them.
What concerns me more than anything, are comments such as the one you posted here... where you accuse Freemasons of supporting pedophilia. That comes very close to being actionable hate speach. You have every right to think the worst of Freemasonry... but keep such opinions to yourself and out of Wikipedia. Blueboar (talk) 22:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it isn't made up ; there are several pedophile affairs in Belgium and France which have alleged Masonic links, such as the Marc Dutroux affair, and the affairs brought up by magistrate Eric de Montgolfier. I also found this interesting article about pro-pedophile judges who were alleged to be Freemasons. [1] The CIA was also said to have powerful ties to drug trafficking, child trafficking and secret societies. [2] ADM (talk) 22:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let us know when you come up with reliable sources.--Vidkun (talk) 13:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What saddens me is that you actually seem to believe this crap. Oh well... have fun and don't forget to shine your tin foil hat. Blueboar (talk) 02:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that your hat ? I don't have any hats. [3] ADM (talk) 02:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neither do I, actually. But, if you saw the amount of hair that I have, you'd probably understand why. By the way, as Blueboar and Sarek will both probably be all to happy to agree with, I am not a Mason, and am, to a degree, an opponent of Masonry as it has existed earlier. I also started with the same conlusions you did, but have come, admittedly somewhat regretfully, to conclude that Masons aren't always the big bad boogiemen pop culture would lead us to believe. I can and do believe that the origins and recent history of the organization make it in my eyes more than a little suspect, and that I personally wouldn't join it. But my own history with them has been colored to an unfortunate degree by the actions of one person who was fanatical about both Freemasonry and his own ego, probably more the latter than the former. In the United States, anyway, we don't have anywhere near the kind of social pressures to conform to religious orthodoxy as can still exist elsewhere. As a result, the impetus to clearly fail to conform is also greatly reduced. Personally, I think those pressures were probably the driving force for much of Freemasonry's more "colorful", shall we say, history. But, right now, without those driving factors, at least in the US, it does seem to me that "regular" Freemasonry is basically primarily what it seems to be, a social benevolence society. Of course, things can be said against them. I'm still an active Roman Catholic, despite the recent history of sex and money scandals, because I know that most of that activity is performed by a small group within the church, and that it is nonrepresentative of the church. The same can be said for Anglicans (who have had a diocese cease to exist because of the money owed from sex cases), and any number of other groups. Yep, no really big group is perfect, Freemasons included.
But that's not really why I came here, anyway. I came here because of your interest in creating the Category:Enoch. The only real reservations I have would be that I don't know what existing articles you would want to include in the category, and what, if anything, the text at the top of the category would be to indicate what other articles, present or future, might fall within the category as well. If you could give me a better idea as to what you were thinking in that regard, I'd do what I can to help place the new category in the right existing categories for optimal usage. Thanks. John Carter (talk) 13:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfD nomination of Protestantism and American politics

[edit]

I have nominated Protestantism and American politics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to make judgements, I was just asking questions about the article Catholicism and American politics, and was wondering why corresponding articles didn't exist. ADM (talk) 05:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This essay should serve as a good explanation, as well as, possibly this guideline.--Vidkun (talk) 17:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Political positions of Barack Obama

[edit]

I have rolled back your recent edits to Political positions of Barack Obama because they did not constitute political positions. Rather they were commentary about those positions, which is not appropriate for that article. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think they were criticisms of some of some of his more controversial ideas, but I nevertheless understand that those have to be left out, as the article merely describes his positions and doesn't try to explain related debates about them. ADM (talk) 12:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christian

[edit]
Hello, ADM. You have new messages at Talk:Christian.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

- Fayenatic (talk) 08:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

reply your comments on Talk:Reiki

[edit]

There is a reply to your comment on the Talk:Reiki page. User:Off2riorob

Talk:Spiritual_plane#Christianity

[edit]

I added the planes chart's page number.--Dchmelik (talk) 18:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Theology

[edit]

Hi, that topic may not be my strong point. If you look at my user page, you will see that I only really only do Roman Catholic topics and Saint George was just because I was researching him as ithappened. So I am not into interfaith items, for I think there is much to be still cleaned up in the Roman Catholic area anyway, and not enough people are doing RC items. So for now I need to focus on mostly RC topics.

Cheers History2007 (talk) 17:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 April 8

[edit]

Donum Vitae is now restored. Please do some work so notability is clearly indicated. - Mgm|(talk) 10:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Animal Rights

[edit]

Unfortunately the animal rights people believe that animals are more important than humans, even unborn ones. Despite the work of St. Francis of Assisi, Christian viewpoints are not welcomed by the animal rights crowd. I have seen reasonable statements like yours about Animals vs. Fetuses removed by the editors of the animal rights discussion page. Despite this blatant bias, keep up the good work. Bugguyak (talk) 08:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edits

[edit]

I see that you are marking many of your edits as minor, even when they make significant changes to articles. By Wikipedia definition, minor edits are those which don't change the substance of the article, such as correcting spelling or fixing formatting. See WP:MINOR. You may have set "mark all edits as minor" in your preferences. Edits like these are not minor: [4][5][6][7][8].   Will Beback  talk  23:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These are some things I could consider minor : making a rather insignificant fork, splitting paragraphs to create smaller sections, correcting typing mistakes, adding a minor sentence to a minor article, making a small comment in the talk page, adding a secondary source to a secondary POV, etc. I had never really read WP:MINOR and I didn't think anyone would bother to ask me whether some edits were minor or not. In any case, I will carefully follow your suggestions in order to better tell the difference between minor and major edits. ADM (talk) 23:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

April 2009

[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Roger Mahony has been reverted, as it appears to have removed content from the page without explanation. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 03:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Sexual abuse scandal in Cloyne diocese

[edit]

I have nominated Sexual abuse scandal in Cloyne diocese, 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/Sexual abuse scandal in Cloyne diocese. 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. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sexual abuse scandal in Miami archdiocese, where there is a keep consensus. Also, this affair is very notable in Ireland, you would know it if you read the Irish newspapers on a regular basis. ADM (talk) 19:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary

[edit]
Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thanks, and happy editing.

Happyme22 (talk) 23:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

[edit]
Hello, ADM. You have new messages at Talk:Bugchasing.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dillard421♂♂ (talk to me) 05:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ADM/Archive_2&oldid=1072561975"