User talk:Gabrielthursday

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

Welcome to WikiProject Catholicism![edit]

Emblem of Vatican City State.svg

Hello, Gabrielthursday, and welcome to Wikiproject Catholicism! Thank you for your generous offer to help contribute. I'm sure your input will be much appreciated. I hope you enjoy contributing here and being a Catholic Project Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to discuss anything on the project talk page, or to leave a message on my own talk page. Please remember to sign all your comments, and be bold with your edits. Again, welcome, and happy editing!



Vote![edit]

Emblem of the Papacy SE.svg This is a reminder to go vote for the
Catholic Collaboration Effort
.
Support or comment on the current nominations, or nominate an article for collaboration.
Current nominations:

Napoleon[edit]

Hello Gabrielthursday, one comment to your post (I don't have time with more becuase like many others I need to sleep, but I will write more later). You should not be blinded with the common notion of a monarch; behind almost every dynasty there stands a man (or more rarely a woman) with a strong sword arm. Carl Logan 22:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Move Roman Catholic Church to Catholic Church[edit]

There is a vote at Talk:Roman Catholic Church: A Vote on the Title of this Article on moving Roman Catholic Church to Catholic Church. You are invited to review it. --WikiCats 04:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

PZ Myers[edit]

Thanks for your support. Robert O'Brien 18:00 September 8, 2006 (PDT)

My edits[edit]

I have rved myself. (And no admins should not be given leeway). I'll discuss tommorow why I disagree with most of your edits. Need sleep now. Have a goodnight. JoshuaZ 04:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

NPOV[edit]

Please read the WP:NPOV and WP:NPOV/FAQ and WP:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience before attempting to redefine them in terms of your own m:MPOV. — Dunc| 22:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

You're awfully willing to assume the worst of me. I'm aware of the principles of NPOV, and the specific policy you point to doesn't address the specific situation. I won't restate my arguments here, as they are properly on the relevant talk page. Gabrielthursday 00:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC) (Originally posted on Dunc's talk page.)
No you're clearly not aware of principles of WP:NPOV because you are demonstrating a profound misunderstanding of what they mean. Like I say, RTFM.
Do you really think that we've not had trolls around here before claiming that reporting that something is considered pseudoscience by scientific community "violates NPOV", even when it's backed up with WP:CITE and WP:V, in line with WP:NPOV#Undue weight (not to mention common sense)? — Dunc| 09:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
For someone so rightly insistent on adherence to WP:NPOV (though in this case, imho, misapplied), I find it a little odd you should be so cavalier about WP:CIV and WP:NPA Gabrielthursday 10:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

honourifics[edit]

Father is functionally the same as Doctor or Professor, so it does not belong. We already get the point by the SJ after his name, "is a Jesuit priest" in the intro, and the "Priesthood and theological study" section. •Jim62sch• 12:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Again using the analogy from Knights, they are referred to as Sir Adolphus Wigginbotham, KB, KCMG. The Sir is the title- the KB illustrates where it is derived from. So too with the SJ- I'd note, however, that for priests there are those who will have no initials, being secular priests. I'd agree that the "is a Jesuit priest" would be redundant if I thought most everyone was aware of the meaning of SJ, but I rather doubt it- and it would result in a problem with consistency if applied to, say, Norbertine priests. The headnote is a summary of the specifics, so I don't see any important redundancy with regard to the "priesthood" section. While the question of exactly why Father is different than Doctor or Professor may be complex- I'll try and hint at it. One is not made a Doctor, but rather becomes one on account of having earned a Ph.D. One is made a Knight; one is ordained a priest. Such distinctions may seem nonsensical to you, but I suggest that that's the reason why they have come to have different usages- and why Fr and Sir are "stickier" than Doctor. Gabrielthursday 12:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Gabriel, OK, that's a good idea (raising it at MOS). "Pastor" should be included in the discussion as well, because most Protestants refer to their ministers as "Pastor" Doe. Maybe reverend too, although if I remember correctly, calling the minister "Reverend" Doe is an older practice that has fallen out of favour. Might as well cover the whole shebang so other Wikipedians have clearer guidelines than we did, and they won't have to rely on an interpretation. In the end Father Coyne might yet do another service.  ;) (BTW, in colloquial speech I have no problem calling him father in certain contexts, even though I'm an agnostic/non-theist.) •Jim62sch• 09:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Bloodless[edit]

You asked on my talk page: "Isn't there some level below which the usage is insignificant?". Yes: less than 1 good reference. The Columbia University Press published an encyclopedia that clearly states what I reinserted in the Glorious Revolution article. Google hit counts have nothing to do with quality and very little with significance. Please note that the article puts it, as it was before, as 'sometimes' – even less strong than the Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. And for 'sometimes', the 980 or so 'hits' I got (and I did not check the relevance of each, thank you) will be sufficient. — SomeHuman 28 Sep2006 22:32 (UTC)

(copy of reply and further reply, from SomeHuman's talk page:)
Well, accuracy is one thing, significance is another. The Columbia Encyclopedia certainly establishes its accuracy, but I continue wonder about its significance. This little debate of ours is incredibly minor- I'm less concerned about the immediate case than I am to know if there's some formal or informal standard which determines significance. Best, Gabrielthursday 23:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
The Columbia Encyclopedia states it is significant by mentioning it, if it's noteworthy for that encyclopaedia then it is sufficiently significant for 'ours'. For a guideline, see WP:Notability, and further considerations e.g. by Uncle G: On notability, by Stifle: Don't say non-notable.
(PS: The above handle especially what makes it worth having a whole article on a topic; having just a mere mention of some fact in an article will not need to qualify by such high standards, but it gives a hint what to pay attention to.) — SomeHuman 28 Sep2006 23:39 (UTC)
(copy of reply from SomeHuman's talk page, and further reply)
I was about to make that very point before you posted your postscript. I agree about the reduced standards, but I'm afraid that still does leave us with very little guidance. That the Columbia Encyclopedia includes it is a significant point, but not determinative in my view- other encyclopedias can include insignificant facts as well as ourselves. Perhaps the most significant thing about its inclusion is the statement that "bloodless revolution" reflects the whig interpretation. Gabrielthursday 23:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
...which is not even specified by the Columbia Encyclopedia's article – but 'ours' is more comprehensive. Then surely it should not leave out this alternative 'Bloodless Revolution' name. The 6th edition of a work that involves the reputation of the Columbia University, should not contain too many needless statements anyway. — SomeHuman 29 Sep2006 00:07 (UTC)
Sure. I wish there was some indication of wider use of "Bloodless Revolution", but one can't have everything. I remain a little skeptical, but I'm not going to revert the thing. Gabrielthursday 00:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Bad faith[edit]

The following conversation took place on both Starghost & my talk pages. I've put all the posts together here. -Gabriel

So, on the critique of atheism talk page you say "I agree. Anyway, feel free to create the article.", but now you're voting to delete it. Frankly, I'm having difficulty interpreting that as anything but bad faith. Cordially, Gabrielthursday 21:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Not at all. I encouraged you to create the article because as I see it is consistent with the bureaucratic process. First, we decided that it did not belong in the Critique of Atheism article. I agreed it should me moved to somewhere else, but you can see the discussion was more complex than that, I was disputing not only it's presence in that article but it's validity as a whole. Moving it to a new article would solve half the problem, now I voted to delete to solve the other half. I dont know why you're so surprised, I thought I made my position pretty clear from the start. Or you would think just because it's been moved to another article suddenly all the disputes over it would vanish? I didn't accuse you of being trigger happy with tagging both the Critique of atheism and the Persecution of atheism articles (initially with poor justification, something I would personally regard as baiting), the fact that you selectively picked atheism related articles to dispute, while leaving other articles such as metaphysical naturalism with a different handling of the same matter, and the fact that after removing material from the persecution of atheism article in the manner of get things done, ask questions later, and then completely forgot about the follow-up weeks after. I could very well claim bad faith, but I've tried my hardest to keep the discussion civil. I must say your lack of faith in me comes off as in really poor etiquette, but this is irrelevant, I hope you are satisfied with an answer, as a token of courtesy, since I probably shouldnt be explaining myself anyway. Starghost (talk | contribs) 02:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
With all due respect, you approved the spin off at the Talk:Critique of atheism page and then took an opposing position on the AfD page. You admit you didn't really agree with the spin off- even though you claimed that was largely what you meant by "move".
On a brighter note, I think that for two editors who so very clearly get under each others' skin, I'm pleased that we've been able to be cordial. Gabrielthursday 05:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
It's like I said on the AfD, I'm looking for a precedent to establish the argument is rubbish. If it's deleted my position is strenghtened. You can see this method works better than limiting the discussion to what we were doing beforen and you can see the discussion there is somewhat different. Surely you can see how I was being pragmatic. And in case it doesn't get deleted, I still think it's better than just leaving it there, so either way I would approve the spin off. The spin off was a half-assed temporary solution. It basically comes down to number 1: take it out of the Critique of atheism(CoA) article, number 2: dispute it's status all toghether. By agreeing to move it I fullfilled number 1, by voting to delete I am working on number 2. Approving the spin off was productive for the CoA article as I see it, so I'm acting on good faith there. On another note, I as well appreciate the fact we have been able to sustain a discussion for so long. Starghost (talk | contribs) 17:03, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
On the other hand I can see that decent responses are being posted to the EAAN and they are indeed making me change my feelings about it. It seems all is working for the best of outcomes. Starghost (talk | contribs) 17:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Style of cooperation[edit]

Hi, I happened to see this edit of yours : [1]. Just a note to mention my appreciation for the way you seem to cooperate on Wikipedia. -- ➌  LucVerhelst  11:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Hear, hear! — SomeHuman 7 Oct2006 20:44 (UTC)
ditto even tho I disagree with you on almost everything :) Poujeaux 14:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

plantinga[edit]

Thanks for your comment. sorry to see your eaan page is now up for deletion. i've given it partial support. Poujeaux 14:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Going on a break[edit]

I am going to be without internet access from October 15-20. I don't expect anything really radical to go on at EAAN or Critique of atheism, which seem to have stabalized a bit. However, if anything extreme is being proposed (i.e., something like the recent AFD), I'd appreciate it if you would mention my absence. Not that my absence should necessarily hold things up, it's just that I've occasionally seen major changes proposed, voted on, and adopted in very short order. I'm not concerned about content, which can always be fixed, but rather things that alter the article at a foundational level. Thanks, Lamont A Cranston 16:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Will do. Have a good time. Gabrielthursday 19:30, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The Root of All Evil?[edit]

Are you sure? Haggard's words are as follows:

Haggard: But, you see, you do understand. You do understand that this issue right here of intellectual arrogance is the reason why people like you have a difficult problem with people of faith. I [note: this means him, Haggard, and it is Haggard who is talking] don't communicate an air of superiority over the people because I [it's still Haggard speaking] know so much more. And if you only read the books that I knew, and if you only, knew the scientists I knew, then you would be great like me [this entire thing is Haggards words].

It's copied straight from the clip (about 5 minutes in, you can't miss it)!

I can only assume that by "me" Haggard means himself. For example, when I talk to someone, I don't say "me" or "I" when I really mean them! If I went and said to you "If you did X then you would be great like me", you wouldn't assume that I actually meant "You act as if people aren't as great as you because they don't do/know X".

I'm struggling to think of a way to describe what Haggard said without making him look like some kind of hypocrite, but it was a notable part of the show and deserves a presence within the article. --203.59.166.123 08:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Yep, I'm sure. Haggard is speaking in the persona of Dawkins- which is why he ends that line with (from memory): "that's your problem: arrogance". It's a useful rhetorical device, though the editing of the scene makes it confusing, I grant you. Gabrielthursday 16:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

an admin deleted our discussion[edit]

I've moved it to User:Coelacan/Ted Haggard if you want to continue. — Coelacan | talk 21:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I saw that. Thanks. Gabrielthursday 21:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Bill Gates[edit]

The factual and legal conclusions of the district court were never vacated. The order was. As you can now see in the article history, adding "allegedly," in addition to being misleading, encourages people to add stronger wording. Gazpacho 22:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Diocesan Infobox[edit]

To the Members of the WikiProject Catholicism

I have proposed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Catholicism an infobox for Catholic Dioceses. I have not gotten any feedback on this proposal, so I’m culling feedback, advice, corrections, etc. for this. If you have the time, would you check out User:SkierRMH/Diocese_Infobox and give me some feedback! Thanks much!!

Hi[edit]

Do you still want help with Intelligent Design, or is the situation handled? I think I can help as a member of the neutrality project. give me a jingle on my talk page.NinaEliza (talk contribs logs) 07:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Revert on Bobby Jindal article.[edit]

I had previously removed the block of text and had requested a reason for reverting it back. And while it isn't required, since no good reason was provided for the inclusion of that block of text I didn't see any logic countering why it should be included. Had the user provided me with a logical reason as to why that text was relevant to Bobby Jindal then perhaps I would have agreed and kept it there.

On the selective data mining issue, please see the Bobby Jindal discussion page. I have left your edit because I don't want an "edit war", but I would like to discuss the idea that the inclusion of a sourced fact is somehow "selective." DanielZimmerman 14:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

NPOV tag, Babington Plot[edit]

The NPOV tag was applied without explanation, at 20:55, 14 November 2006 by User:Gabrielthursday, who has since made a single edit, in September 2007. A copy of this post will be posted at User talk:Gabrielthursday to ask for some details of what statements require more neutral expression, so that the tag can be removed.

Please reply at Talk:Babington Plot rather than directly to me, thank you. --Wetman (talk) 23:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Christianity[edit]

Hello Gabrielthursday!

You are cordially invited to participate in WikiProject Christianity

The goal of WikiProject Christianity is to improve the quality and quantity of information about Christianity available on Wikipedia. WP:X as a group does not prefer any particular tradition or denominination of Christianity, but prefers that all Christian traditions are fairly and accurately represented.

Christian cross.svg

You are receiving this invitation because you are a member of one of the related Christianity Projects and I thought that you might be interested in this project also - Tinucherian (talk) 11:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Saint Jean Baptiste Day[edit]

Thanks for moving it along. These things always get way too long as they digress into Quebec politics.

I changed a few things on the talk page so that readers can more easily identify what you wrote. Your message gets split up as more people comment, and I wasn't even sure who had even initiated the poll.

I also added a few extra quotes of Wiki naming convention guidelines. It looks like you added them, so I'm asking you to verify if you approve of them. It makes it easier to read this way than if I added my own post. I didn't think you'd mind, but it's always good to make sure. --soulscanner (talk) 04:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

  • I've asked the dissenting editors to acknowledge the Wikipedia naming conventions that emphasize that article titles should be the ones that are most recognizable to English-speakers[2]. If they do not, I think we should ask for a Request for comment as the next step in solving this dispute, as such a refusal could constitute bad faith. It will require at least two editors to start the process. Thank you. --soulscanner (talk) 19:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

RfC[edit]

Gabriel, for some reason, your RfC is not getting listed at the RfCSoc list. This is likely why it's not getting any comments. (That and the summer vacations).--Ramdrake (talk) 13:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Orissa Violence - Missionary Version[edit]

Do you use sockpuppets?

Jobxavier (talk) 07:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

There is largely pro-Christian stuff in the Net. You are using it extensively without searching for the other side's versions.

Why do you object to mentioning that the NMC is a pro-minority body of non-Hindus; yet quote extensively from it?

Why do you insist that the John Dayal mission is an NIC committee, when the link itself denies it?

Again, while you go on adding sob-stories about Christian suffering, you do not mention the 10 attacks on the Swami with equal emphasis. If the Hindus had Bishops, the Swami would have been someone like a Bishop. Why is it that you do not deem the repeated attacks on him, and his final elimination as of consequence while you quote the same pages again and again on Christian suffering with figures upto 10000 etc.

The population figures of the Christian converts do not match favourably with the sky-high statistics of Christian churches and homes alleged to be destroyeed. Does every Convert have a church building each?

The so-called churches are merely huts where the tribals are collected together by the missionaries for proselytisation. You refer to them as churches to give the impression that they are Basilicas.

Why is it that a pic of the slain Swami is not given along with the dubious pic of a burned 'Christian' girl?

Steines has a lot about him in the Net, including stuff about his paedophilia and religious intolerance. His wife about the forgiveness is mere charade because she only wants to continue in India to enjoy the Charity funds.

Jobxavier (talk) 08:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

With all respect, the majority of what you have just said is nonsense. Both your edits and your comments bespeak a POV that you insist on inserting into the article. I further object to your entirely unsupported accusation of sockpuppetry. Gabrielthursday (talk) 10:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry that you are upset. You insist that you dont use sockpuppets? I agree that christian intolerance is not unusual [a la the Inquisition]; especially among the neo-converts. Well, you agree that your slant cannot be accepted? Try to take a neutral view. By the way, you do not wish to point out nonsense specifically? Jobxavier (talk) 10:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I do not use sockpuppets. I do not agree that I have a slant, while yours is remarkably self-evident. I suggest you heed your own counsel on taking a neutral view.
As for specific instances of nonsense, your previous comment suggests that I'm responsible for every aspect of the current page, when I began editing it just a few days ago. I have not added anything on Christian suffering; you allege that the use of the term "church" is itself biased, then you derisively describe churches in offensive terms. I could go on... Gabrielthursday (talk) 10:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Have you been to Orissa and seen these alleged "churches"? I suggest that you do. i am not into any Hindu slant. But the Page was and is propaganda. I only tried to be Christian-honest. The Page, when Recordfree was watching it , just stopped short of describing Hindus as barbarian heathen! Jobxavier (talk) 10:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I think we ought to call a truce and ask for third-party intervention. I'm slapping a NPOV tag on the article, and I'll see about what kind of assistance is necessary. Gabrielthursday (talk) 11:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
User:Gabrielthursday -That they are POV is only your POV. a third party can judge it, Mr. Vvarkey; not you and me.

Jobxavier (talk) 08:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi all. I saw this dispute while patrolling using Huggle. What is the article in question? I'd be happy to read it over for WP:NPOV violations. Prince of Canada t | c 08:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I replied on my talk page. I would like to add further (and will be saying this to both of you): please refrain from editing the page until I've read it and made my comments. Alternatively, I would be happy to mediate this in a more deliberate fashion at WP:MEDCAB, if one or both of you feels like opening a case. Prince of Canada t | c 09:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Of course. I'm happy to consider all options at dispute resolution, but I'm not optimistic for the prospects of mediation in this instance. To be frank, I've been leaning towards an RfC. Of course, I've never gone through either before, so I would appreciate your advice. Gabrielthursday (talk) 09:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Let's keep it at my page; I've already replied there. Prince of Canada t | c 09:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Mediation[edit]

Hi there. I have opened a case for everyone to settle their disagreements at the Mediation Cabal, here. The dispute is beyond what I think I can work with, so I think someone more experienced will be able to help you all respect each other, find common ground, and continue to make Wikipedia better. Prince of Canada t | c 11:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Orissa religious violence[edit]

Sorry for answering late, I was out of the internet. In case of severe dispute, you can try Wikipedia:Third opinion or Requests for comment on articles. What I have seen you are fighting POV pushing there, and your efforts are much appreciable. I noticed a mediation case is opened which is a good idea. I will try to provide some opinion on the article in talk page. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Sir, I have made a response [here]. I am always open to correction. So please let me know if I need to be addressing things differently. Recordfreenow (talk) 06:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Widespread?[edit]

Just as a side note, I think it might be unfair to say improper (or speculative) labeling of LGBT folks is "widespread in WP". WP:LGBT does a pretty good job of identifying LGBT folks and providing WP:RS references for each. Have you seen the List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people? There are 17 sub-lists (A, Ba-Bh, etc) and 6 of them are FL, with another on the way. While there are particular instances (Anderson, Jodie, and Jay Brannan come to mind), I disagree with saying it's "widespread". I've several cases of removal, often using WP:BLP as a guide, but this is one of the first that I've been on the "other side" - I'm enjoying the experience :) Thanks for your input and help - and happy editing :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I wasn't thinking simply of LGBT individuals, but of speculation about relationships between celebrities in general. But this is just a sense of things - I might well be overstating it. Gabrielthursday (talk) 18:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
You touched a nerve. Sorry for reacting so strongly :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 19:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

RE:Religious violence in Orissa[edit]

The page has been unprotected. Please do remember when a page is protected for an "indefinite" amount of time, that does not mean it is protected "forever." It just means there is no set expiration time. I usually indefinitely protect articles with edit warring because if I set an expiration time then most people will just wait until the protection expires and go back to disruptive editing. Thanks for the note though. Cheers, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I see much point in making any edits to the article, given that it is being comprehensively rewritten from start to finish. I've gotten some of the others to agree to leave off editing until the rewrite is completed; it would be an excellent act of good fait for you to do the same. Prince of Canada t | c 01:55, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


3RR Warning[edit]

You just violated WP:3RR on Anderson Cooper. To avoid admin action, please revert your own last edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TVC 15 (talkcontribs) 02:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Gabrielthursday, I am a novice user, but have had difficulty contributing to a page due to the use referenced above, TVC 15. I sought help and two experienced users provided valuable edits. It seems as though he feels he can remove anyone's edits, but that no one can remove his edits. Hopefully, we will reach consensus. Thanks Mwalla (talk) 21:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)mwalla

Edit warring comment[edit]

Gabrielthursday, after Job dropped a message on my talk page regarding the edit warring, I've gone over the recent edits and the supporting refs, and found lots of problems. As I stated on Job's page, I'm getting very close to locking down the article until the situation is discussed calmly and resolved. I have told him that I expect no further mass edits, and instead I expect any changes to be proposed first on the talk page and discussed in a neutral and non-accusative fashion by all involved. Specifically what needs to be discussed is whether the proposed text accurately reflects the ref, and whether the ref meets the standard of reliability. As a regular here, I ask that you participate in a calm, civil fashion, and if others make accusations, that you don't respond. I'll take care of that. Thanks and good luck. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 20:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Plantingas EAAN[edit]

Gabrielthursday, I noticed that you worked on the EAAN page. Unfortunately the user "Hrafn" tries to link the page to Intelligent Design and started to edit it. I did my best to convince him that the argument is directed against naturalism given evolution and can be used by theists and deists alike, but he is convinced that Plantinga is an "ID-proponent" and that the argument is part of the ID-movement. It seems he is not open to any argument, not even quotes from the editor of "naturalism defeated?". I would be glad to get help by someone who understands the argument well. Thanks and best regards. --194.124.140.39 (talk) 08:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Ichthus: January 2012[edit]

Ichthus dark yellow.png

ICHTHUS

January 2012

Ichthus is the newsletter of Christianity on Wikipedia • It is published by WikiProject Christianity
For submissions contact the Newsroom • To unsubscribe add yourself to the list here

Wikipedia Help Survey[edit]

Hi there, my name's Peter Coombe and I'm a Wikimedia Community Fellow working on a project to improve Wikipedia's help system. At the moment I'm trying to learn more about how people use and find the current help pages. If you could help by filling out this brief survey about your experiences, I'd be very grateful. It should take less than 10 minutes, and your responses will not be tied to your username in any way.

Thank you for your time,
the wub (talk) 17:35, 14 June 2012 (UTC) (Delivered using Global message delivery)

make a userbox[edit]

I copied the following userbox unto my own user page. It would be good if you made a userbox templates. Just an idea.

Perpetual help original icon.jpg This user is Catholic.

>> Jesus Loves You! M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemusfeci) 08:44, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Feast day listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

I have asked for a discussion to address the redirect Feast day. You might want to participate in the redirect discussion.

You are receiving this message because you are a member of WikiProject Catholicism and/or WikiProject Saints --Jayarathina (talk) 12:36, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Nepali election results[edit]

Hi Gabriel. Thanks for starting to add the results to the article. What's your source? Cheers, Number 57 11:48, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh, hang on, I think it was the IP that added the table? Number 57 11:51, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Golden Dawn's ideology[edit]

I had a few comments in reference to the series of reverts at Next Greek legislative election.

Firstly, I would like to point out the section of wikipedia policy I was referring to when I said "unexplained content removal." WP:REMOVAL says "... when removing a section of an article, it is necessary that it at least be explained, and in some cases, discussed. Unexplained content removal when the reason for the removal is not obvious is open to being promptly reverted..."

As such, I found my revert entirely consistent with wikipedia policy.

Secondly, since you did explain yours, Golden Dawn's ideology is not in dispute. There are no less than 7 reliable third party sources citing the party as neo-nazi, and zero sources contradicting this. There is also no active discussions on the talk page. The Golden Dawn article does note, factually, that the party itself disputes this. However, as wikipedia functions on the basis of third-party sources, its inclusion in the article does not, and cannot, dispute Golden Dawn's ideology. It is merely a separate fact that third-party sources found notable and thus was included.

If you yourself believe that there is an issue with an article, please address it on that article, rather than edit warring on a different article. Whether Golden Dawn is a neo-nazi party or not is a subject for the Golden Dawn page, and the Next Greek legislative election article merely reflects the consensus that was reached on that page. Thank you. --4idaho (talk) 18:32, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I haven't time to address this immediately, but I would gently point out that the edit was not a matter of content removal. It was the replacement of one descriptor with another, slightly less particular descriptor. Both descriptors have been applied to Golden Dawn, and have substantial overlap. (cross-posted to (talk) Gabrielthursday (talk) 21:43, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree with everything you're saying, and in response I'll simply point out that's not what you said when you reverted my edit. What you said was that Golden Dawn's ideology is "in dispute", which it, simply, is not. The ideology section on the party's page is extensively sourced and there is no dispute regarding it. As such, there is no reason not to be as particular as possible.
As to whether the edit qualifies as content removal, you yourself establishes that it does when you say neo-nazi is a more particular descriptor than ultranationalist, i.e. it imparts more information which is not imparted by ultranationalist. --4idaho (talk) 22:52, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
My initial edit was not vandalism, and my later edit was not content removal. To describe the substitution of one synonym with another as content removal is rather absurd. You are very free with your allegations, and I do not appreciate it. I certainly believe you to be acting in good faith and I would appreciate the same courtesy. As to the actual dispute, more particular does not mean more accurate. Reasonable people can disagree about the extent to which Golden Dawn embodies neo-nazi characteristics, and the extent to which it is somewhat sui generis. Having followed Greek news the past few years with interest and concern, my sense is that there is a tension within Golden Dawn between its specifically Greek nationalism and the strong Nazi influences within the party. I will quote from a comment I made on the talk page:
"There are certainly neo-nazis within the party, but the party has emphasised different aspects of far-right thought. Simply the fact that they are so enthusiastic about Metaxas suggests that it isn't an unconflicted neo-nazism. In general, I think we should avoid using a disputed term (and especially elastic terms, which neo-nazi decidedly is; and even when it is principally disputed by the subject) for a simple reference unless there is no adequate alternative. At any rate, ultranationalist is at least as accurate, if not more so, as neo-nazi, and I hardly think such a term white-washes the movement."
I think the sources for Golden Dawn being neo-nazi are certainly sufficient for their use on the main article, but I think it rather simplifies a somewhat complex phenomenon when referring to the party in passing. Gabrielthursday (talk) 07:34, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
I would like to apologize for being disrespectful, because I also think you're in good faith.
To your main point, this brings us to the crux of the problem. The Next Greek legislative election article is not the place to argue Golden Dawn's ideology. I am not agreeing or disagreeing with anything you're saying, but if you believe neo-nazi is an oversimplification of Golden Dawn's ideology, the correct place to argue that is at Golden Dawn's page. --4idaho (talk) 13:11, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm not really contesting what their ideology can accurately be described as, though. Neo-nazi is broadly accurate, though I think some qualifications need to be made. It's a question of what's more appropriate and helpful as an adjective when referring to Golden Dawn on other pages. I do think that, in general, an undisputed term is better than a disputed term in such circumstances; and particularly where a term is not a flawless fit, another, closer term should be preferred. In the present case, neo-nazi is disputed by the party; and in my view "ultranationalist" is more precisely applicable than "neo-nazi". Gabrielthursday (talk) 08:17, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Neo-nazi is more specific term than ultranationalist, and its only your personal opinion (i.e. original research) that its "not a flawless fit." Seven third party sources disagree. Their ideology is also not disputed. The article does note, factually, that the party itself disputes this. However, since wikipedia functions on the basis of third-party sources, its inclusion in the article does not, and cannot, dispute Golden Dawn's ideology. It is merely a separate fact that third-party sources found notable and thus was included.
WP:THIRDPARTY says,
"Wikipedia does not allow editors to improve an article with their own criticisms or corrections."
You are trying to edit on the basis of original research in this case. I strongly suggest you look at WP:FORUM on this subject, it directly relates to what you're trying to do.
Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses or to publish new information. Per our policy on original research, please do not use Wikipedia for any of the following:
[...]
3. Personal essays that state your particular feelings about a topic (rather than the opinion of experts). Although Wikipedia is supposed to compile human knowledge, it is not a vehicle to make personal opinions become part of such knowledge. In the unusual situation where the opinions of an individual are important enough to discuss, it is preferable to let other people write about them.
In this case, you are merely editing on the basis of a personal opinion (neo-nazi is "not a flawless fit"), and, to make it worse, you're doing so on an article unrelated to the actual subject. No article, however, can be changed on the basis of original research or personal opinions.--4idaho (talk) 13:58, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
It's quite appropriate to edit style and appropriateness on the basis of personal opinions. My opinion is that ultranationalist is a better and more appropriate adjective in the context of a description of the party on a page other than its own. I have provided substantial reasons for this view. There is no reference which claims that it is more accurate or more appropriate to describe Golden Dawn as neo-nazi rather than ultranationalist. The references support the applicability of the description, not that it is the only appropriate adjective or that it is the superior adjective. I fail to see how changing one word qualifies as a "personal essay"; and it is not my opinion that Golden Dawn is ultranationalist. In my opinion, it is inaccurate to claim that this is an already-settled question. Gabrielthursday (talk) 00:14, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying your position. Saying that, if we're using only one word as an adjective, ultranationalist better encapsulates their ideology (as defined on the Golden Dawn article) is different than saying neo-nazi shouldn't be used because its an "oversimplification" of Golden Dawn's ideology.
That said, I strongly disagree. Neo-nazi encapsulates elements of Golden Dawn's ideology (racism, anti-semitism, xenophobia) which aren't communicated by ultranationalist. Neo-nazi however (per its article on wikipedia) does encapsulate nationalism. Ultranationalism is simply a narrower term, and thus less useful (since Golden Dawn on its article is established as both neo-nazi and ultranationalist.)
To put this another way, if you're not disputing neo-nazism as their ideology, what element of their ideology is a). established in the Golden Dawn ideology, b). not communicated by neo-nazi? You've only argued your personal opinion (i.e. original research) that neo-nazism is "not a flawless fit." You've essentially been arguing that neo-nazism encapsulates ideological elements not present in Golden Dawn, which is contradicting the extensively-sourced Golden Dawn article, and the correct place to argue that is the Golden Dawn article.--4idaho (talk) 16:20, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 12[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Phoenix and the Turtle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Fletcher (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:52, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Reshuffling table EP Elections 2014[edit]

i see your correction on my work, i'm agree on concept i've put the pary right as they ere classified in the upper table but your total is 749 so you did some wrongs taking out C's from alde it back in new parties, so in this column is -45 for a total of 18 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.13.234.100 (talk) 09:17, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

EP election infobox[edit]

Hey, I saw you added in the group leaders for the 2014 EP election infobox. Whilst I agree that may well be best, instead of having the Commission candidates, why did you add the group leaders from after the election? They weren't the leaders when the election happened, which was on 22-25 May - instead, the group leaders from that time should be added instead. Redverton (talk) 08:03, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

@Redverton:If the EP election were akin to most elections, I would agree. However, there are a number of unique characteristics. EP elections can be broken into three important elements: the campaign & election itself; the process of group formation and realignment; and the final structure of the new parliament. These EP election articles have opted to deal with all three of these elements, and have given the main "outcome" as the post-realignment outcome. Given the emphasis on post-election outcomes, it makes sense to identify the leaders of the groups as they emerge from the election. Secondly, the main advantage of identifying the leaders during the election campaign would be to highlight the campaign leaders. But election campaigning in EP elections is incredibly diffuse. National political leaders have by far the most significance, probably followed by individual candidates, the Spitzenkandidaten and EP group and political party leadership. Any choice of a "campaign leader" would be misleading, I fear. In the absence of significant campaign leaders, it makes sense to show the structure of the EP following the election, including the leadership. I think this has also been the practice in articles about past EP elections. None of this is to say that it is beyond debate. I think the current page is sensible; but if you think it's worth debating, we can talk about it on the talk page. Best, Gabrielthursday (talk) 20:10, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

European Parliament election, 2014[edit]

Hi,

just wanted to make you aware that you are edit-warring now.

Kind regards, --RJFF (talk) 14:56, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

@RJFF: I think that is unfair, though I do applaud your positive engagement on this matter. I've been relatively slow to revert the bold edits, despite the fact that the policy is to leave the article in the status quo ante while discussion is ongoing. Nor am I happy with the declaration that consensus has been reached when I perceive somewhat limited engagement with my objections to the edit. I am certainly willing to open this dispute up to an RfC, getting outside opinions. Gabrielthursday (talk) 15:12, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
If you are involved in a discussion or conflict, you should never revert more than once, even if policy is on your side. There is no justification for edit warring, except vandalism - which is clearly not the case here. I don't blame you. I know that it is hard not to revert if you think you are right and policy is on your side, but everyone should conquer himself and not do it. We should always remember: This is not a matter of life or death, not even vandalism or defamation (which of course may always be reverted). Both options are somehow acceptable, we are just arguing which one is better. Therefore it is totally unimportant which of the versions is maintained until we find some form of consensus. Take care, --RJFF (talk) 15:30, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
@RJFF:I might take a slightly looser view on what constitutes acceptable editing, but I do appreciate the counsel to irenicism. In particular, I don't think that WP:1RR is the limit for non-edit-warring, if that makes sense. To quote from WP:WAR: "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement through discussion". As I've been extensively trying to resolve the disagreement on the talk page, I don't quite think it qualifies as edit warring. But again, I do appreciate the suggestion to be careful.
On the issue of whether it is important which version of the page should be present until resolution, I agree it isn't the most important thing, but the policy is there for a reason. Especially on strongly contended issues, we all ought to follow policy as well as we can. Best regards, Gabrielthursday (talk) 17:23, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

EP Elections[edit]

Hello, your I just want to say your entire piece about the spitzenkandidaten was completely wrong. The lead candidates should be included into the info box, one of them ie Jean-Claude Juncker emerged as the victor. By not included them your are buying into the myth that the lead candidates didn't matter, because they did in fact. I would like for you to stop changing my edits and making your own reality — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnthonySeymourEU101 (talkcontribs) 03:15, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

You told me that there is consensus, I looked on the page and there is no consensus there are some in favour of keeping it and some like you are not for whatever anti-EU agenda you have. Who made you in charge of the whole process? Cant there be a section devoted to the lead candidates, because those group leaders didn't run in the election, groups do not compete in election the Europarties do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnthonySeymourEU101 (talkcontribs) 08:54, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

@AnthonySeymourEU101: When the decision was made, all active editors involved in the discussion were in favour of the change. It came as the result of long discussion. And, I would point out, there are multiple sections devoted to the lead candidates in the body of the article; they are certainly not ignored. Your suggestion of bias is unhelpful and obnoxious, please attend to the issues. Nor am I "in charge of the whole process." I am following policy and trying to improve WP. Gabrielthursday (talk) 07:00, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
@Gabrielthursday: I am sorry I suggested you have a bias and that I came across as obnoxious, that was rather silly due to the fact I don't know you. But I will say this I understand your point to a certain extent but there has to be some consistency in this and what does the Lisbon treaty change. Also I suggest you take a look at the European parliament elections french page which is a perfect example of how the English page should look. I don't wish to start a war with you, I just don't clearly understand the reasoning. AnthonySeymourEU101
@AnthonySeymourEU101: Hey, no worries. Also, I'm sorry if I was somewhat flinty. Of course, in a certain sense, we all have biases (or at least opinions) that we bring to our understanding of events; but I do try to be aware of my own tendencies and to arrive at a fair and (inasmuch as it is possible) objective view of things. I'm sure I'm imperfect in that attempt; but I suspect many other Wikipedians (not yourself) make no effort to reach an objective viewpoint.
I can try to summarise the case for the current infobox structure, though much of it has been hashed out at greater length on the talk page:
  • The articles about previous EP elections use the resulting group leaders as the "leaders" in the infobox, so we have a consistent usage.
  • Unlike most elections, the groups contesting the elections (national political parties, and to a much lesser extent, Europarties) are not the main functional units of the resulting elective assembly. The principal functional units within the European Parliament are the EP groups - they get the funding, the allocations of committee seats and chairmanships, etcetera. So it makes sense to use EP groups as the main elements in the infobox.
  • Again, unlike most elections, because national parties affiliate or change affiliation in the period after the election, it makes sense to give the main results as the post-realignment results. Since we focus on the outcome, it makes sense to have the leaders who will have a continuing function in the European Parliament. There is no doubt that this differs from most election articles, which generally highlight the leaders during the election campaign.
  • Although the lead candidates had a significant role as campagaign leaders, other figures also had leadership roles in the campaign - Martin Callanan of the ECR certainly had a significant role; and more importantly, national political leaders have large leadership roles in the campaign as well.
  • Because the infobox uses the EP groups as the main standard for results, using the lead candidates as "leaders" in the infoboxes creates various inconsistencies: the lead candidates were all nominated by their Europarties, not the EP groups, and so some of the numbers attributed to their "leadership" do not have any allegiance to them. Also, since the infobox reports post-realigment numbers, it associates some parties with leaders who they didn't campaign under, even if they subsequently joined the relevant Europarty.
  • I was somewhat surprised to see how weak the link between the EP election and the choosing of the Commission President was. I believe the relevant section was quoted on the talk page, but suffice it to say that the EP doesn't have the only word in the process, and there is no mention of "lead candidates".
  • The appropriateness and legitimacy of the lead candidate process remains highly disputed (and not just by eurosceptics: Van Rompuy and Delors objected, among others). By changing the way we present election results, we would appear to endorse one view of what the election was "really about"; by maintaining a more formal view of the election, we avoid that WP:NPOV pitfall.
I hope that gives you a better idea of the discussion, and some of the reasoning that led to the current form of the article. As a final aside, welcome to Wikipedia. Don't let me scare you off! And it's not neccessary to ping me on my own talk page- I'm alerted without it. Gabrielthursday (talk) 07:13, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:JSTOR access[edit]

Hello, WP:The Wikipedia Library has record of you being approved for access to JSTOR through the TWL partnership described at WP:JSTOR . You should have recieved a Wikipedia email User:The Interior or User:Ocaasi sent several weeks ago with instructions for access, including a link to a form collecting information relevant to that access. Please find that email, and follow those instructions. If you were not approved, did not recieve the email, or are having some other concern or question, please respond to this message at Wikipedia talk:JSTOR/Approved. Thanks much, Sadads (talk) 21:14, 5 August 2014 (UTC) Note: You are recieving this message from an semi-automatically generated list. If you think you were incorrectly contacted, make sure to note that at Wikipedia talk:JSTOR/Approved.

RfC[edit]

Hello, as we haven't really agreed about the lead of the ECR I thought it would be a could idea to get more comments so I started an RfC which you'll find here [3]. I hope I haven't misrepresented your view, and I hope you will take part in the discussion. Have a nice day. Jeppiz (talk) 21:28, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

You accidentaly duplicated a section[edit]

Hi, Your edit restored information that was removed. However, minutes before you I already restored the same information, and then you re-added the same section again. I already used my 1RR quota for today, so I can't revert your mistake - please have a look at it yourself. Thanks, WarKosign 10:18, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign: Thanks for bringing it to my attention. As an aside, if I remember correctly, self-reverts don't count against 3RR or other revert limits, so I believe you would have been within your rights to revert your edit. Gabrielthursday (talk) 10:31, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

January 2015[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Titus Oates may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • innocent, as he had done in the Wakeman trial, and a backlash against Oates and his supporters the [[Whigs (British political party)|Whigs] took place.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)