User talk:ADM/Archive 11

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Hi, I noticed that you made a bold edit there. In these cases, it may make sense to leave a brief message before to avoid WP:BRD, but in any case, I think the addition of the page on his Mariology was certainly an improvement. The Montfort item is pretty good, and may even need expansion. However, I think the rosary issue is now buried in the Mariology page, and needs a little more flash and prominence upfront, given that its own page is no longer there. It would be best if you do that yourself to achieve continuity in the Mariology page you started. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 08:25, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I made the title Rosary Pope more evident in the corresponding entry about the Mariology of Pope Leo XIII. ADM (talk) 08:51, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. One day I will get to make those encyclical red links blue.... In fact some o fthem need to get added here: Marian papal encyclicals and Apostolic Letters History2007 (talk) 01:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ADM. You have new messages at Talk:United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.
Message added 05:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Chuckiesdad/Talk/Contribs 05:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for creating that entry. I read it and it looks good. ADM (talk) 05:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I appreciate that you made some efforts to paraphrase the text on National Review Board so it would no longer be a copyright infringement. Unfortunately, adding synonyms and minor alterations in the sentences won't relieve the plagiarism issue. I have therefore deleted the second paragraph as a copyright violation. You are welcome to rewrite it using original language. The page on WP:Close paraphrasing can provide you with some explanations and help. In the long run, it is always better to simply write the text from scratch using your own words. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. Regards, Theleftorium 14:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see:: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yahweh and Allah.Borock (talk) 06:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure why you forked the "religion" section for no reason and with no attempt to establish consensus before doing so. I have taken the liberty of putting it all back. There are much larger sections that would lend themselves to forking much quicker. JFW | T@lk 22:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have to establish consensus before editing, there is nothing in Wikipedia that requires me to do so. Or else, everybody would have to wait days and days before editing and lots of people would leave the site, if you would have your way. Besides, the section about sectarian positions is out of place in an article about medicine. See for example religion and AIDS or Christianity and abortion, where similar forks are freely carried out. ADM (talk) 22:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's just say that it is perfectly reasonable to discuss the religious, social, ethical and political impact of diseases within the context of any article about them. This is exactly why I would recommend attempting a talk page discussion before forking, especially if it concerns a featured article. I don't really understand how an open discussion about forking would have anything to do with editor retention. JFW | T@lk 23:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you create a special category about coeliac disease instead ? Then you can keep your featured article status without being needlessly offended when forks are naturally created. I don't think it's a quality article by the way, all quality articles need to have some specialized categories within them, or else they are just good articles, but not excellent articles. Also, I would add that not only do quality articles require categories, they also require relevant splits into sub-articles, often created by anonymous users through forks. ADM (talk) 23:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a fair number of related articles, and currently there is insufficient content to warrant a subarticle on religion and coeliac disease. It is not "my" FA status, and it received FA status after it was reviewed by a large number of editors with whom you now seem to disagree. Your insistence that every featured article needs subarticles and forks is not borne out by Wikipedia policy, unless there is a policy of which I am yet unaware. JFW | T@lk 23:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to ask you to restore the entry. There can never be any consensus when one editor tries to impose his views on the other, especially through unfair behavior like unilateral deletions. ADM (talk) 23:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restore what entry? I can move it to your userpage if that makes it easier for you? JFW | T@lk 23:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I significantly increased its size from my userpage, then would you restore it ? ADM (talk) 23:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see User:ADM/Religion and coeliac disease. You are invited to expand the current content in coeliac disease, of course only based on sources and meeting general notability guidelines. If it turns out that the content becomes (disproportionally) voluminous it can always be moved to a subpage. To reiterate my points above, please show me a Wikipedia policy that disallows religion/society/ethics/culture/politics-related content in medical or scientific topics. Quite on the contrary, such sections allow for a topic to be examined from all angles. JFW | T@lk 23:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]