User talk:Anietor/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, Anietor, 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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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!  Regards, Accurizer 21:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Pope Benedict XVI

U are right. I should had looked better on what I reverted... In fact, my edit summary contradicts my revert! I will be more careful next time:). btw, I think that the article should be semiprotected for some time. 88.107.146.244's edit was indeed valid, but the Pope's article is vandalized in a daily basis. Hectorian 05:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I see u are a new user. So, welcome:) Hectorian 05:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Welcome as well!

It's great to see that you've made yourself right at home, and your recent responses on the Spain talk page were very helpful. It's great that you've put the WikiProject tag on your user page (me too!). There's actually a "Participant" list on the front page of the WikiProject Spain page, that is helpful if we all list our names there.

Is there anything yet about the Spain-related materials that you are particularly interested in lending a hand on? If you'd looking for a little project, I might have a suggestion or two.

Again, bienvenida(o), and thanks for your contributions thus far! EspanaViva 16:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

My Userpage

Thanks for catching that grammar mistake. I'll correct it in a second. Good eyes ;)...¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 19:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Anon

I thought that they were the same user [1] [2]. Or maybe I got confused, with such things I generally act a bit automatically and keep track of a number of articles. Cheers! Baristarim 02:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Ceuta

Hi. Feel free to edit the Spain Article. I was going to change it, but I'm still a bit newbie here.--Taliska1 17:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits! EspanaViva 19:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

question on reverting vanalism

Greetings, whoever is kind enough to answer this. A quick question on dealing with vandalism. I do a lot of cleanup of vandalized articles, but I was never clear on one thing...is it better to revert or to use the undo feature? It seems that clicking the undo button is a lot simpler, but is there a catch? Is there a benefit to going through the longer process of reverting (going to the previous good version, going into edit, and saving it...)? Seems that reverting takes longer, and could lead to an accidental revert of someone who edits the article while you're doing it. --Anietor 01:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's a catch to using the 'undo' feature, and you're right, it is faster. If you accidentally revert someone's legitimate edit, you can always add it later and apologise, so it shouldn't matter that much. But I think that you should just use whichever one is easier for you and for the situation. Reverting is still useful, for example, when a vandal makes several vandalizing edits, since undoing just the last one will still leave vandalism. —Keakealani·?·!·@ 02:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Sock puppetry by Capt Jack Doicy?

Hello, Anietor! May I add my own welcome to Wikipedia, and my appreciation of the good work that you have already done in your short time here.

Given the high standard that you have set for yourself, I was surprised by your post to User talk:Capt Jack Doicy; not only its peremptory tone, but also the decision to title the post sock puppet. As a result of an edit dispute with Capt Jack, I have no doubt at all that he and 82.26.106.141 are one and the same. However, this is not sock puppetry. As the policy article makes clear, a sock puppet is an additional username used by a Wikipedian who edits under more than one name. It also points out that multiple accounts may have legitimate uses. 82.26.106.141 is not a sock puppet, since it is not a named account; it is simply the IP address from which a post was made by a user who had not logged in. Obviously it is good practice to make a point of logging in before making contributions (especially contentious ones), but as far as I know it is not mandatory, and I am sure Capt Jack is not the only user who occassionally forgets to log in (I have done this myself from time to time) or assumes that it makes no difference. Certainly this can create a bad impression, but it is not evidence of bad faith.

I need hardly remind you that a suggestion that a user is employing a covert sock puppet is, in effect, an accusation of gross dishonesty. Such an suggestion should not be made unless there is compelling evidence. In this case, I would suggest that evidence is lacking: on the contrary, though Capt Jack is not my favorite editor, I would suggest that he is more notable for candour than for duplicity. Given that you have highlighted the assumption of good faith as part of your Wikipedia philosophy, you might wish to consider making an an apology.

You may reply here if you wish; I have added this page to my watchlist. Regards, John Moore 309 13:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I always appreciate feedback from other editors, especially when it helps me understand how others may interpret something I meant in a different way. I didn't intend my query to be accusatory, which is why I put it on his user page and not the discussion page of Pope Benedict XVI, where the ongoing debate was taking place. My concern was the possibility that he was using an IP address AND his registered name to make it seem that there was more than 1 person in favor of putting the NPOV tag on the page (and to support his "Nazi-pope" rantings in the discussion page). I did research the WP guidelines on this, including the article you suggested. I disagree that an IP cannot be used for sock puppetry, however, since there is a specific tag for identifying an IP address as being suspected of the practice. I thought it would be premature to label him an abuser, or to even give his page the suspected sock puppet tag. So, I made a simple inquiry and asked him to address the issue, without notifying any administrator, tagging him, etc. If it turns out my concerns were unfounded, I would remove the post and apologize. I did label my post "sock puppet", but didn't think that would raise any alarms, again, since it was just an inquiry, not an accusation or tag. But I suppose I should realize that other people may see his user page and take away the wrong impression, so I understand your point. I will err on the side of caution (and kindness!) and change the name of the post, so he can still address the issue without the dreaded "SP" word appearing on his discussion page. Cheers! --Anietor 15:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt and courteous reply. I had no way of knowing, of course, when I made my post, that you had already looked up Wikipedia:Sock puppetry; I am not sure that I agree with your reading, but I am not a specialist in the subject. I must also admit that my own initial reaction to Capt Jack's work was to suspect sock puppetry; it took me some time to realise that editing without logging on would produce the same effect.

A look at your edits to date suggests that there may not be much overlap in our areas of work (although I have other interests in private life, my work on Wikipedia is mostly on naval history); nevertheless, please contact me if there is anything on which you would like my input.

Best wishes for your Wikipedia career, and sincere regards,

John Moore 309 22:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

London, England

Mother Teresa, Criticism and Anti-Catholic and Anglophile credentials of Christopher Hitchens, Tariq Ali and Aroup Chatterjee

Dear Anietor,

I'm very sorry I confused you for Cas Liber (who you followed/mimicked in your strike-out, if you studied, you would find another anglophile by Cas Liber's own webpage admission) The other latest strikeout was Badlydrawnjeff , by his own website admission is into "exploitation films".

Do you really think these other 2 recent Wikipedia editors (like the subject 3) are interested in correctly setting the record straight on Mother Teresa or are they more interested in criticizing the religion she courageously stood for and who did the best she could with the many-times-meager resources she could obtain?

If you don't think Christopher Hitchens, Tariq Ali and Aroup Chatterjee aren't Anti-Catholic or aren't Anglophiles (in their education and socio-economic/secularist anglo-royal, Brahmin, eugenical thinking) you need to study the background of these three much more closely and notice their legitimization by media such as BBC, BMJ-British Medical Journal etc.

Lest you think I have prejudice against anglophiles, be it known I have more than 50% English/British ancestry and after close study for over 20 years I know quite a bit about the evil side of my wayward cousins and struggle to control that same type of thinking in myself that less than dignifies-equally, every human person.

Although there have always been a small English minority that have been exceedingly brave and serve the moral and common good well the overwhelming majority serve the gods of secularism and greed. Left vs. Right etc. make no difference since for secularists, and Anti-Catholics they can always divide and conquer till they get exactly what they want using this time proven method. There is a small similar strain, increasing in the USA, unfortunately, learned from the same examples from the old world, that true republican (sic - small r) Americans have always tried to be rid of.

With all that said, I don’t favor censorship, but the background of the writers needs to be made clearly known in cases of severe criticism, and, to not acknowledge the Anti-Catholic AND Anglophile sources of criticism is plainly naïve, uncharitable and misleading. Especially when there has been an increasing crescendo over the last 10 years, mainly from British Journalists (John Cornwall-“Hitler’s Pope” etc)., BBC, UK-History Channel, British Medical Journals et al . The last time I checked , the British monarch must sign a law before the law goes into effect and Roman Catholics “need not apply” for the British Royal Crown.

Please excuse my terrible error, and I applaud your efforts and sense your motivations are much purer than those editors into “exploitation films”. Keep it up.

With High Regards, ST --Squiretuck 08:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Anietor. I want to thank you for your work on Mother Teresa. Cheers, Majoreditor 21:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. I'd been taking a break from the Mother Teresa article but am slowly returning. I hope to work on it more in early June. Hopefully you'll continue participating. I look forward to working with you on MT and other religion articles. Majoreditor 02:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

{{ChicagoWikiProject}} tag

WP:WPChi uses a bot that tags both Category:University of Chicago alumni and Category:Northwestern University alumni with the {{ChicagoWikiProject}}. This tag was not a mistake. I am going to readd the tag. Let me know if this is a problem. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Mother Teresa

The article Mother Teresa you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. It hasn't failed because it's basically a good article, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Mother Teresa for things needed to be addressed.

• The Giant Puffin • 20:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

		The Saints' Barnstar
		In the Wikipedia tradition, I award you "The Saints' Barnstar" for bringing the article on Mother Teresa to Good Article status. Majoreditor 22:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Persecution of Christians

Hi. Regarding your additions to Persecution of Christians, you would have more success if you used a combination of primary and secondary sources. For example, you stated as fact, rather than attributing, the view of Walid Khalidi. You should try to use neutral, secondary sources to refer to the alleged contemporary persecution, and either attribute a quote to Khalidi or very closely paraphrase the passage in question. Same thing goes for Gruber, Solheim, the Catholic World News, and Dorf: this "persecution" isn't explained, just asserted, and that's not how we do things here. —Viriditas | Talk 22:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but you must not have read the entries very closely. I didn't make any of those additions. I commented in the Talk Page about a couple of them, but I didn't originally add any of them. You seem to have attributed somebody else's edits to me...and that's not how we do things here...  :-) --Anietor 01:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

My comments stand. By additions, I mean your reversions. —Viriditas | Talk 05:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you have it all backwards. If you are going to revert material, you need to have a good reason. I explained to you why the material was removed. —Viriditas | Talk 05:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Your thoughs on Gregory of Nazianzus: could it be FA-status?

Hi, Anietor. I was wondering if you could take a quick glance at Gregory of Nazianzus and let me know if you think it ready to submit for Feature Article review. Thanks! Majoreditor 01:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I'd be happy to give it a look-over. I read through it once and was quite impressed. It's a very interesting article, and reads well. I'll give you some feedback in a bit. If you're looking for another project after this one, have you seen the article for Greg's dad? That needs some work! --Anietor 03:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Article has been promoted to FA-status. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Majoreditor (talk • contribs) 02:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Pope John Paul II

Hello there. I see you are re-order the trivia items. IMO it would be even better to either incorporate the notable points into the article, and delete the non-notable (ie, 'trivial') bits. See WP:TRIVIA. kind regards Merbabu 05:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:San_Diego.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:San_Diego.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 01:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 01:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect

I have reverted 3 times in the past 24 hours. The 3RR clearly states that an editor must not revert more than 3 times. The 4th revert took place more than 24 hours after the first. Batman2005 04:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Holy See vs Holy See of Saint Peter

Anietor, can you please offer an opinion on the Talk Page for Holy See? An anon user has renamed the article. Thanks. Majoreditor 01:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm on it!--Anietor 02:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your help and your kind remarks. Majoreditor 02:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Blaine

The main 3rd party RS for notability is the long article in the Toledo city Paper--though no longer available at the publisher's site, it is at the Network's site. It is supported by the Chicago Tribune story and supported further by the Washington Post story. The MS story, even though it has only a paragraph about her, shows attention in a national publication which considers her notable. All together, it shows her importance as an activist. Her organization is a national organisation, and she is President. By repeated AfDs, non-controversial positive bio details can be taken from a site associated with the person, as long as notability is shown by independent sources. You are welcome to see what others think at AfD, but based on my recent experience there, it is very likely to pass. Thanks for giving me a chance to fix the ref to the Toledo paper, and insert a comment about availability. DGG (talk) 18:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

It's from the link he added

It's just to show the low quality of the link he added. A.J.A. 02:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

You'll want to comment on this GAR

Please see [3]. Majoreditor 02:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Mother Teresa criticism section

Thanks for the message. I have mixed feelings about the criticism section. When I originally started working on the article I wasn't opposed to having a criticism section. However, you've made a powerful case that criticism is best interwoven within the article rather than segregated into its own section.

• An advantage to having a criticism section is that it may help acheive consensus. (Emphasis on may -- the laws of unintended consequenses can come into play.)
• A disadvantage to having a criticism section is that it could become a troll magnet. For example, the article used to have a section on commemoration and honors of MT, which became an unreadable laundry list. When the section was spun off into its own article, poof, the problem went away.
• I have re-thought an earlier idea I had about creating a separate article on critcism of MT. A closer examination of WP policies shows that this may violate WP:POVFORK, so I withdraw that suggestion.

I'd very much like to know what Jossi and other experienced editors have to think of the merits of criticism sections in articles.

Please let me know how you wish to proceed. Thanks. Majoreditor 16:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

One other observation. WP:MoS says this about article structure and criticism:

"Separating all the controversial aspects of a topic into a single section results in a very tortured form of writing, especially a back-and-forth dialogue between "proponents" and "opponents". It also creates a hierarchy of fact — the main passage is "true" and "undisputed", whereas the rest are "controversial" and therefore more likely to be false, an implication that may often be inappropriate.

"Since many of the topics in an encyclopedia will inevitably encounter controversy, editors should write in a manner that folds debates into the narrative rather than "distilling" them out into separate sections that ignore each other."

Note that this is not from an essay; this is from the policy manual. Majoreditor 17:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, Jossi weighed in. Between his opinion and MoS I've decided that a criticism section isn't the best way to go at this time. Majoreditor 21:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks you for the malicious post on my user page

I know you must be frustrated that I have reported you as one of the likely operators of a sockpuppet and for violating WP:3RR, but spurious claims of vandalism on my talk page are ridiculous. If you are planning any action connected with this, the administrators will be able to witness the audit trail and that your claims against me post date my use of the standard complaint procedures. If you repeat your action against me, I shall have to raise yet another complaint agianst you. --Peter cohen 19:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to refer this matter to whomever you like. Our respective edit histories speak for themselves, Peter. You are frustrated that you can't get the Mother Teresa article delisted, or to include the criticism that you personally want to throw in. I really don't mind if you want to say that I am acting as a sockpuppet (an accusation you apparently just made against another well-established editor who disagreed with you). I trust wiki admins well enough to know that they won't be tricked into your rather transparant traps. Good luck, though! --Anietor 20:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Interesting and currently relevant commentary from ex-editor

Sound familiar? I hope you find yourself less depressive than he did himself. Keep up the good work writing an encyclopedia. Baccyak4H (Yak!) —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 20:20, August 21, 2007 (UTC).

mother theresa

FYI, the results are going to be the same regardless of whether or not you violate WP:CANVAS... it will be speedy kept due to bad faith noms... so, I wouldn't bother with violating canvas rules.Balloonman 00:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the head up...I didn't know about WP:CANVAS. I will now notify people on the other side of the debate as well. That doesn't undo it, but hope it evens the playing field a little. --Anietor 01:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem. In my first wiki debate I did the same thing. Which is how I learned about it.Balloonman 02:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

PS I closed the debate due to WP:FORUMSHOPingBalloonman —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 03:08, August 24, 2007 (UTC).

Just a notice

Hey, I've noticed you're trying to clear up some offensive comments by users on Roman Catholic Church. It seems like the page has been protected, but the one who protected it didn't notice that another anonymous user had reverted your cleaning up and added more vandalism on it. Now that this page is protected, it's gonna be a hard job cleaning up vandalism as some established users have gotten their hands on it before we can clean it up.

ætərnal ðrAعon → 08:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up! It seems to be semi-protected, so I think we should be able to fix it. --Anietor 19:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Need your input

Dear Anietor, Could you please come give your comments on this page:WP:AN/I#What to do about DominvsVobiscvm? . An administrator placed this notice on the administrators board because this user, DominvsVobiscvm has been reverting edits on the pages Roman Catholic sex abuse cases and Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami (where his material is locked on the site while it is in arbitration), and John Favalora. I see that he reverted some of your edits on Sex Abuse Cases and we need to comment on the administrators site to show consensus to them that no one wants his material on the site except himself. Thanks in advance for your help. StacyyW 12:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I will join the discussion there and try and get this ongoing problem resolved. --Anietor 17:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Christianity by country

Please join the ongoing dispute in the Christianity by country article, it is important for us to hear new opinions and to resolve the dispute. Andreyx109 10:53, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

{{helpme}}

Is there a way to edit something placed in an edit summary? It's just a silly typo I wanted to correct, but I don't know how to correct something typed in that edit summary box after it's saved. Thanks!--Anietor (talk) 18:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

No, it's impossible. If you forgot to put something important in an edit summary, the best thing to do is to make a dummy edit afterwards with a corrected edit summary. --ais523 18:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Pre-dominance of christianity in Europe

Hi Anietor,

I come from the Netherlands and i know that christianity doesn't dominate my country and most other countries in Europe. There is a clear and active antipathy towards the country both within a majority of the parliament and within the wider population. People, like me often belong to a church officially, but we will often not baptize our children anymore or go to church. We don't bleieve in the christian dogmas and are unsympathetic towards them. It simply is a fact and it will not change. You have to deal with the truth, because religiousness is rapidly becoming obscure in Europe. In 50 years, christians belong to an extreme minority.Daanschr (talk) 09:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks...although not sure why you're telling me this. Was it because of a recent undo edit I made to the Christianity by country article? The problem is editors can't use their personal, anecdotal experiences to support edits, particularly in tables that use percentages. If there are statistics supported by government surveys or census data, that is information that can be relied upon. We can certainly include footnotes about the source if there is substantiated criticisms, or if documented problems with the numbers are available. However, editors going in and saying that the numbers seem too high based on their observations of who goes to church, or their own definition of what makes a person Christian or Jewish or Muslim, etc. (which is what was done several times in that article) is not acceptable. --Anietor (talk) 16:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I have put the evidence on the christianity talk page.Daanschr (talk) 19:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Invitation

There's a revived project here, Wikipedia:WikiProject Secret Societies that you may be interested in. JASpencer (talk) 15:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Re:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Florry Burrell

I have to tell you that I am almost (almost) regretting getting involved on this AfD. Being called a "sad and pathetic loser" by User:King Greebo is one thing, but this "all in the family" style approach to saving articles is something else.

I got involved in AfD discussion to learn a little more about the deletion process, at the advice of another editor. I have no personal interest in this article, but I am using it as a bit of training to learn my way around Deletion guideleines and policies. I'm not sure how many you have been involved in, but is this a common occurrence? By "this", I mean a community of editors coming so literally out of the woodwork to save something. Feel free to reply here or on my user page. LonelyBeacon (talk) 04:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Lonely, I feel your pain! Interestingly, I think this is only the second AfD discussion I have ever been involved in, the first being a long time ago for an article I don't even remember. This one is very brutal, and I was upset to see some of the posts, and the personal attacks against you and others. It seems that Florry's personal fan club is trying very hard to hide the ball on the notability issue by making outlandish claims of sexism and personal attacks against those who are (neutrally and fairly) arguing for the deletion of the article. I have tried to insert comments here and there, but now feel a need to step back and count down from 10 before responding, for fear of being lured into the petty nonsense. I have nothing against the subject, and like you joined the AfD rather randomly. It has not been a pleasant experience. At this point all I can do is make a few comments, try and stay calm, and hope that whatever admin reviews the discussion isn't misled. I don't have the personal interest in deleting the article that others obviously have in keeping it. Hang in there! You are not alone. --Anietor (talk) 04:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I suppose my faith in the system is renewed. LonelyBeacon (talk) 12:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Christianity in China

Hello,

I noticed that in your last attempt to revert the vandalism, you didn't go back far enough. All the best.Brian0324 (talk) 18:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

oops. My bad. It looks like you did it.Brian0324 (talk) 18:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

You have deleted another time Tony Lambert's study about false statistics. The paragraph continue to be POV and propaganda-oriented. Statements such as: The last 200 years have seen explosive growth that has by far outpaced church growth in the West. At the beginning of the 21st century, China is estimated to be the third largest Christian community on earth, with some opining that Christianity eventually might become a Sino-centric religion are completely POV and they must be deleted. Wikipedia should use academic studies/researches/sources, not claims of partisan websites. --Esimal (talk) 13:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

This is turning into a bit of a circus - or a kangaroo court. Not sure which. I think that this user Xi Zhu must just be a reincarnation of the IP sock puppet/vandal. And to think that I don't even subscribe to reincarnation, generally!Brian0324 (talk) 19:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

As per some of our previous conversations about Chinese Christianity info being deleted or downplayed on Wikipedia, you should see what one fellow has been doing to Lisu people. I'll be restoring what he keeps removing, but you might be interested in chiming in. Cheers!Brian0324 (talk) 16:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

December 2007

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Pope John Paul II. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Groupthink (talk) 00:14, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church

There is a revote on the FA leave comments page of this article. You are invited to reexamine the article and either confirm or deny your previous support vote by voting again. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 08:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Talk christianity

Your removal of my comment does not bode well with me; I do not see why my comment, which was no more personal than anyone elses was removed. Tourskin (talk) 06:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Zoological Society of San Diego

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Zoological Society of San Diego, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.sandiegozoo.org/disclaimers/aboutus.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 01:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Zoological Society of San Diego

A tag has been placed on Zoological Society of San Diego requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Missionaries of Charity

You reverted my edit stating that: In 1988, Pope Paul VI... In 1988, Pope Paul VI had been dead for 11 years. Either Pope John Paul II bestowed permission for the expansion of the Missionaries of Charity, or Paul VI did so in 1978. Please clarify. 64.231.76.226 (talk) 02:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The year was wrong. --Anietor (talk) 17:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you take a look MT?

Hi Anietor, I was wondering if you can take a look at Mother Teresa. I recombined the praise and criticism into a Reception section. Haven't removed content, just tried to weave it together so that the article isn't balkanized (pardon the pun.) I also asked Peter Cohen to look at it as well. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 01:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

vatican edits

the creation of the international relations section for the vatican was in line with a talk on the holy see page. It hasn't, apparently, been monitored in weeks. But see the talk page there for the reason for the diversion. I also set up a discussion for merge (i haven't gone ahead and done it). But along the lines of all sovereign states, vatican has its own foreign policy too. Lihaas (talk) 20:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Mother Teresa

Any reason why you prefer blindly reverting without addressing the point I made regarding Wikipedia:Honorifics#Honorific prefixes? Garion96 (talk) 06:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)