User talk:StAnselm/2019

(Redirected from User talk:StAnselm/Archive 22)
Latest comment: 4 years ago by Gerda Arendt in topic Precious anniversary
     2019   
All Pages:  1 -  2 -  3 -  4 -  5 -  6 -  7 -  8 -  9 -  10 -  11 -  12 -  13 -  14 -  15 -  16 -  17 -  18 -  19 -  20 -  21 -  22 -  23 -  24 -  ... (up to 100)


The Signpost: 31 January 2019

The Signpost: 28 February 2019

Orphaned non-free image File:Nufarm logo.png

 

Thanks for uploading File:Nufarm logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:42, 22 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Orphaned non-free image File:Mount Pisgah Christian School logo.png

 

Thanks for uploading File:Mount Pisgah Christian School logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:40, 23 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 31 March 2019

April 2019

 

Your recent editing history at Fraser Anning shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
You know the rules, it was your edit that was contested, YOU need to take it to the talk page. Bacondrum (talk) 23:10, 2 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

No, you added the bit about a conspiracy theory - that's what I'm objecting to. StAnselm (talk) 23:44, 2 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

  This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Fraser Anning, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Your actions are borderline edit warring, StAnselm. Repeatedly removing a sourced statement about Fraser Anning's endorsement of the "Cultural Marxism" conspiracy theory, despite being repeatedly warned against doing so, is entering the territory of vandalism and it shall be halted accordingly. Stop trying to blank sourced data. Adrian Fey (talk) 02:20, 6 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

  Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:StAnselm reported by User:Adrian Fey (Result: ). Thank you. Adrian Fey (talk) 02:31, 6 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

FYI, 4RR

Hi, you've breached 3RR. Would you kindly self-revert? PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:07, 6 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

No, I claimed an exemption to 3RR because BLP violations must be removed. StAnselm (talk) 07:09, 6 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Orphaned non-free image File:Sarah Wynter as Kate Warner.jpg

 

Thanks for uploading File:Sarah Wynter as Kate Warner.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:14, 20 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Precious anniversary

Precious
 
Seven years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:34, 29 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

... and eight --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:30, 29 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 30 April 2019

Orphaned non-free image File:Ozark Christian College logo.jpg

 

Thanks for uploading File:Ozark Christian College logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:50, 10 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Orphaned non-free image File:After the First Death.gif

 

Thanks for uploading File:After the First Death.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:22, 15 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Ivey

Thanks for your response and civility. After you reverted my edit, I looked at your history for the past few days and noticed the title of the edit, and used it as my own subject line. But having read your subsequent response I saw that you had reverted the same text on the same day it was posted, April 25, 2018. Since you're so prolific on Wikipedia, you had possibly forgotten that. Hopefully we'll get some feedback from other editors. Activist (talk) 11:01, 21 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

I'm not quite sure what you're saying: if you're talking about this edit, it was a partial restoration of some material added by a new editor. A salvage job, if you like. StAnselm (talk) 11:07, 21 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

DS alerts

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in abortion. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

--MrClog (talk) 10:05, 23 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 31 May 2019

Orphaned non-free image File:Ozark Christian College logo.jpg

 

Thanks for uploading File:Ozark Christian College logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:12, 1 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Orphaned non-free image File:Asia Journal of Theology.jpg

 

Thanks for uploading File:Asia Journal of Theology.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:25, 8 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Orphaned non-free image File:Asia Journal of Theology.jpg

 

Thanks for uploading File:Asia Journal of Theology.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:28, 14 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Nomination for deletion of Template:Batsmen with a T20I strike rate above 140

 Template:Batsmen with a T20I strike rate above 140 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Störm (talk) 14:45, 24 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

The June 2019 Signpost is out!

Orphaned non-free image File:OceanaGold logo.png

 

Thanks for uploading File:OceanaGold logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:40, 17 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Category discussion

Have a look at this one: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019_July_21#Category:Participants in the Savoy Conference. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:42, 22 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 31 July 2019

Orphaned non-free image File:Gogo Yubari.jpg

 

Thanks for uploading File:Gogo Yubari.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:33, 16 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Orphaned non-free image File:O-Ren Ishii.jpg

 

Thanks for uploading File:O-Ren Ishii.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:42, 16 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

R. C. Sproul Jr. - Reverted good faith edit

R. C. Sproul Jr: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._C._Sproul_Jr.

Hi, thank you for your experience in regards to this article and the stats on Mrs Sproul Jr's marriages. I have a great deal of respect for RC Sproul Sr and wish to cover matters wisely with his son.

I certainly agree that the website ( http://rc-sproul-jr.blogspot.com/2019/04/rc-sproul-jr-abandons-reformed-faith.html ) would not be considered a reliable source under most circumstances, however, Mrs Sproul Jr herself is the source within the website. She entered a long detailed entry which included the statement: "Yes, I have had four marriages and whether or not I say it was their fault or mine, nonetheless it is the choices I live with." On the source I included the name and time of her entry for easy reference:

Source location: "Lisa Sproul4:21 PM" (Wednesday, April 03, 2019)

I think it best to err on the side of grace and would not having included this information except that she made it public knowledge on the internet.

You are the pro, though, and I'm relatively a new. What do you think?

Beth Timken (talk) 03:56, 22 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Well, for one thing, it's not verifiable. How do we know it was really her? StAnselm (talk) 05:01, 22 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the input ...that was my first concern, too!

The questions I asked myself were -- why would someone with a grudge against Sproul Jr write a long and lengthy detailed defense of him in his wife's name? In the reverse, why would a friend of Sproul Jr write a long and lengthy detailed defensive him in his wife's name? His wife has had a clear online presence and is very capable to write any defense, herself.

The tone and character of the writing is consistent with the other writings Mrs Sproul Jr has online. The knowledge she has about her husband's upcoming book release is also an indicator that she is the writer.

The details about her prior marriages are confirmed by her Facebook account with her relationships with her children and stepchildren.

I think if we apply Occam's razor, the fair conclusion is the writer is who they claims to be -- Mrs Sproul Jr.

What are your thoughts? Beth Timken (talk) 19:45, 22 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

My thoughts are that we should follow Wikipedia policies and not use self-published sources in biographies of living people. It's also irrelevant for this article, though it would be relevant for a biography of Lisa Sproul. StAnselm (talk) 20:35, 22 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

_____

Using this source would fall into the parameters Wikipedia has for using self-published articles about living people:

Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the requirement in the case of self-published sources that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

1. the material is not unduly self-serving and exceptional in nature;

2. it does not involve claims about third parties;

3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;

4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;

5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_self-published_works#For_claims_by_self-published_authors_about_themselves

If you still don't think this information should be included I'll leave it as is. Just let me know. Beth Timken (talk) 21:38, 22 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I still don't think so. The above guidelines might apply on Lisa's article (if she had one) but not on RC's. StAnselm (talk) 23:41, 22 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 30 August 2019

Orphaned non-free image File:Gogo Yubari.jpg

 

Thanks for uploading File:Gogo Yubari.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:36, 1 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Orphaned non-free image File:O-Ren Ishii.jpg

 

Thanks for uploading File:O-Ren Ishii.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:44, 1 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thoughts and Prayers edits

Can you please roll back your edits as i consider them unwarrented or vandalism. Bodconn (talk) 11:22, 3 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

The content removed was secular, legal status along with other contributor content. There is no clerical confligtation as the talk page was open to broad planetary references and religious leaders stating that prayer is only of use when accompanied by suitable corrective actions. So with respect will you rollback the edits. I have no interest in ancient anthropologic theories. The issue is the confligration of clerical spiritulism being used as a tool to obstruct secular legal discussion, a mild case of the red and the blue napolionic war.... with more modern casualties unfortunately. Is this a bias as written above but not outlining other legal states responses, adoption is not expect but to have the ability to review would be usefull. Bodconn (talk) 13:55, 3 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Nomination of Asia Journal of Theology for deletion

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Asia Journal of Theology is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asia Journal of Theology until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Aspects (talk) 05:35, 7 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Orphaned non-free image File:Collider website logo.png

 

Thanks for uploading File:Collider website logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:29, 8 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Ken Ham

Why didn't you use the Talk page? I have been trying to get a response there for quite some time. Given that, your Edit summary was just a little bit insulting. Can you please at least comment there now? HiLo48 (talk) 22:01, 9 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Nomination of Francis Nigel Lee for deletion

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Francis Nigel Lee is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francis Nigel Lee until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:15, 13 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Orphaned non-free image File:Asia Journal of Theology.jpg

 

Thanks for uploading File:Asia Journal of Theology.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:24, 16 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Orphaned non-free image File:Asia Journal of Theology.jpg

 

Thanks for uploading File:Asia Journal of Theology.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:24, 20 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

AfroCine: Join the Months of African Cinema this October!

 

Greetings!

After a successful first iteration of the “Months of African Cinema” last year, we are happy to announce that it will be happening again this year, starting from October 1! In the 2018 edition of the contest, about 600 Wikipedia articles were created in at least 8 languages. There were also contributions to Wikidata and Wikimedia commons, which brought the total number of wikimedia pages created during the contest to over 1,000.

The AfroCine Project welcomes you to October, the first out of the two months which have been dedicated to creating and improving content that centre around the cinema of Africa, the Caribbean, and the diaspora. Join us in this global edit-a-thon, by helping to create or expand articles which are connected to this scope. Also remember to list your name under the participants section.

On English Wikipedia, we would be recognizing participants in the following manner:

  • Overall winner (1st, 2nd, 3rd places)
  • Diversity winner
  • Gender-gap fillers

For further information about the contest, the recognition categories and how to participate, please visit the contest page here. For further inquiries, please leave comments on the contest talkpage or on the main project talkpage. See you around :).--Jamie Tubers (talk) 00:50, 30 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 30 September 2019

WikiProject Canada 10,000 Challenge third anniversary

The 10,000 Challenge of WikiProject Canada is approaching its third-anniversary. Please consider submitting any Canada-related articles you have created or improved since November 2016. Please try to ensure that all entries are sourced with formatted citations and have no unsourced claims.



You may use the above button to submit entries, or bookmark this link for convenience. For more information, please see WP:CAN10K. Thank-you, and please spread the word to those you know who might be interested in joining this effort to improve the quality of Canada-related articles. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:16, 21 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 31 October 2019

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

 Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Orphaned non-free image File:The Conversation website logo.png

 

Thanks for uploading File:The Conversation website logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

List of pressie and reformed denominations in australia

The reason I added the eschatology column was to give the Ulster pressies their historic premil focus. I just added post/amill for the others for this purpose. I think it's important to keep it in. --One Salient Oversight (talk) 02:14, 20 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, but you need to source it for all the other denominations. That will be almost impossible. StAnselm (talk) 02:48, 20 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
What about combining "Gospel offer" and "Eschatology" into a column called "Distinctives"? StAnselm (talk) 03:02, 20 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 29 November 2019

Proposal

Hello! I came across the article for the URCNA and it is very bad. I was wondering if you wanted to help me improve the article. I'm the very long run I would like to bring it to BE Status, but that is not going to happen in a while. I ask you because you seem to share my Calvinistic beliefs, and as the URCNA is a Calvinist denomination, I figured you also might be good person to help. Thanks for considering this, Yours, Puddleglum2.0 Have a talk? 21:41, 1 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Orphaned non-free image File:Institute in Basic Life Principles logo.png

 

Thanks for uploading File:Institute in Basic Life Principles logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:29, 8 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Orphaned non-free image File:Aria Montgomery.jpg

 

Thanks for uploading File:Aria Montgomery.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:25, 20 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Orphaned non-free image File:Nikki Betancourt.jpg

 

Thanks for uploading File:Nikki Betancourt.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:35, 20 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Have a wonderful Christmas!

My reply to your recent actions on the Rod Dreher page

The user StAnselm recently removed extensive, carefully sourced additions to this article (made by me). He gave the rationale that these additions were recently challenged. This is incorrect. Prior additions to these had been challenged; these more recent additions are different and met the objections in the previous challenge - that is, they relied on secondary rather than primary sources, cited multiple sources, included qualifications relating to Dreher's disavowal of some of the language in "Camp of the Saints", and used neutral, non-POV language.

StAnselm also removed information regarding a controversy related to Tommy Curry, citing "undue weight" and "relying on a single source". The sourcing can easily be rectified - the controversy, and Dreher's role in it, was widely reported - including in Snopes, the Guardian, the Chronicle of Higher Education and elsewhere. I do not understand the attribution of "undue weight" - how can it not be notable or significant that Dreher published a misleading excerpt from a talk which resulted in significant racial harassment and intimidation of a scholar, an action which has been widely and extensively criticized in mainstream publications, and which had significant consequences for this individual and his family? If this is not notable, then nothing in Dreher's career is.

Likewise, there is no justification for the claim that providing details of Dreher's views on sexuality, gender, race and immigration are not notable or are somehow "undue". These views, as shown in the multiple citations from mainstream and reliable publications which I provided, have aroused extensive controversy, and are thus by any definition notable and relevant. Anyone familiar with Dreher's blog and other writings will know that he publishes with extreme frequency on sexuality, gender, race and immigration: how can reporting his views on these topics be giving them undue weight, when he himself clearly gives these views significant weight? I could just as easily argue that the section on the "Benedict Option" book gives "undue weight" to this, as Dreher's blog is far more widely read than his books.

As detailed in the career section, Dreher's blog receives over a million page views per month, making him a significant and influential public figure. It is thus appropriate and reasonable that he should have a detailed Wikipedia page, which provides summaries of his major concerns and opinions, as well as the major cultural reactions that these opinions have generated. It is also entirely appropriate that instances of journalistic misconduct, as with the Curry case (which caused a major scandal and had significant effects for an individual and his family), should be reported.

I note that StAnselm retained my edits to the "Career" section, presumably because these edits reflected well on Mr Dreher. I also note that StAnselm has not changed the section on the Benedict Option book, despite this consisting mainly of some laudatory cherry-picked quotations clearly designed to place the author in a positive light. Perhaps StAnselm defines "notability" and "dueness" simply as information which happens to place Dreher in a good light? This is clearly a misinterpretation of Wikipedia's guidelines, in which "notability" and "dueness" can cover both positive and negative information.

As I say, I will add additional sourcing with respect to the Tommy Curry case. Other than this, I don't see any reasonable justification for deleting my most recent additions. Unless rationale can be provided by StAnselm or other users, I will restore them. (It could be argued that for balance the section on the Benedict Option should also be extended to include a wider range of reactions - I am happy to do this.) --Robert12345678901 (talk) 14:20, 25 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thanks

...for your touch-up at the Francis Chan article. I am glad for other careful attention. My only aim is to identify sourced vs unsourced content, then to check the former and to label the latter. I have no "horse in this race," so to speak, just want what is presented to be reliable to third-party sources. (With regard to those sources, I am inexpert, but believe CT to likely be reliable in this arena, and the others—well, these will have to be later checked by experts in this area of scholarship, after I am done. Cheers. 2601:246:C700:9B0:E057:9794:CB77:30A (talk) 08:17, 27 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 27 December 2019